New guidance on registration of mortgage of land use right and construction works - Part 1

New guidance on registration of mortgage of land use right and construction works - Part 1

On 25 November 2019, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued Circular 7 guiding some contents of mortgage of land use right and asset attached to land (Circular 7/2019). Circular 7/2019 will take effect from 10 January 2020 and replace Joint Circular 9 of the MOJ and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) dated 23 June 2016 (Joint Circular 9/2016) on the same subject matter. In general, Circular 7/2019 only provides some guiding and supplementing provisions for Decree 102 of the Government dated 1 September 2017 (Decree 102/2017) rather than providing detailed guidance as Joint Circular 9/2016.

Competent authority managing the registration of mortgage

Previously, the document detailing the registration of mortgage over land use right and asset attached to land is usually a joint circular of the MOJ and MONRE. However, since joint circular is no longer legislative document (văn bản quy phạm pháp luật) under Law on Laws 2015. Accordingly, the unified authority to manage the security interest registration is vested in MOJ. Under Decree 102/2017, the MOJ now has the authority to issue or to submit for the Government to issue legislative documents on the registration of security interest, which includes Circular 7/2019.

A closer look at the use of DICA account for M&A transactions in Vietnam – Part 2

Unclear definition of 51% FIE

Under Circular 6/2019, enterprises with foreign direct investment (FIEs), which must open DICA include (1) enterprises which are established by foreign investors (with or without local partners) (Incorporated FIEs); and (2) enterprises which do not fall under (1) but 51% of which are owned by foreign investors (51% FIEs). Normally, one would expect that a 51% FIE must be a FIE, 51% of which is actually owned by foreign investors (Actual 51% FIEs). However, Circular 6/2019 provides that a 51% FIE include enterprises which have foreign investors making capital contribution or purchasing shares resulting in  foreign investors’ owning 51% of the FIE. The use of the words “resulting in” suggests that a 51% FIE could be a 100% locally-owned company, which has potential foreign investors who may acquire 51% or more of its charter capital (Future 51% FIEs). 

A closer look at the use of DICA account for M&A transactions in Vietnam – Part 1

A closer look at Circular 6/2019 of the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) reveals that it could create more problems than it solves. The key issue under Circular 6/2019 is the broader use of the “direct investment capital account” (normally referred to as DICA).

To understand the issue, one would need to know how DICA works. Under the foreign exchange regulations, DICA must be opened by a company in Vietnam, which has “foreign direct investment” (the FIE). Foreign investor/shareholders of an FIE will contribute capital to the FIE by transferring monies to DICA. Foreign investors/shareholders will get their monies back from Vietnam also by transferring monies from DICA to their own bank accounts (even in case the foreign investor/shareholder sells its investment to another investor). This simple arrangement works well for simple foreign direct investment activities in the 1990s where there is limited M&A activities and foreign investors are mostly foreign manufacturers who do not plan to sell their investment down the road.

View of the State Bank of Vietnam on P2P lending

On 8 July 2019, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) expresses its view and recommendation to credit institutions in Vietnam (CIs) on peer-to-peer lending activities (P2P Lending). The SBV’s view is as follows:

·       P2P Lending is built on a digital platform which connects borrowers and lenders without having to go through financial intermediaries (such as CIs). All lending activities will be recorded on the platform.

·       The SBV acknowledges that P2P Lending is not specifically regulated by current regulations.

·       Besides its potential to create additional way to mobilize capital, P2P Lending can give rise to the following risks: (1) misleading information provided by P2P Lenders about the product’s safety, (2) the lack of oversight on P2P Lending’s platform in terms of cybersecurity, (3) P2P Lenders’ using customer information for predatory lending activities, and (4) P2P Lending being considered as activities of CI.