VAMC - New tool to resolve bad debts
The much expected Decree on setting up Vietnam Assets Management Company (VAMC) was finally issued on 18 May 2013 and will take effect from 9 July 2013. VAMC is expected to play a major role in resolving the massive amount of bad debts accumulated by Vietnamese banks. However, a quick review of the Decree indicates that in order for VAMC to be up and running many steps and decisions remain to be taken.
The Basic
VAMC is a non-profit State-owned enterprise and incorporated as a single-member limited liability company. VAMC has a chartered capital of VND 500 billion. The SBV is the representative of the State capital in VAMC.
How it works
Decree 53/2013 establishes a quite complicated mechanism to deal with bad debts of Vietnamese banks. Below is an example of how such mechanism works:
- Borrower B mortgages its house to borrow a loan of VND 100 billion (Secured Debt) from Bank A. Borrower B fails to repay the Secured Debt and the Secured Debt becomes bad debt of Bank A. Bank A has not set aside any reserve for the Secured Debt..
- VAMC issues special bonds (VAMC Bond) according to an issuance plan to be approved by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV). VAMC Bond has a term of five years and carries no interest.
- Bank A sells the Secured Debt to VAMC in exchange of VND 100 billion VAMC Bond. This step requires the Secured Debt and Borrower B to satisfy certain conditions. As a result of the transfer, VAMC will become the owner of the Secured Debt and be entitled to the mortgage over the house of Borrower B (the Mortgage). The transfer is made by way of a contract between VAMC and Bank A. In some cases, the SBV may even force Bank A to sell its bad debts to VAMC if Bank A does not cooperate with VAMC.
- Bank A pledges VND 100 billion VAMC Bond with the SBV to obtain a recapitalisation loan from the SBV (SBV Loan). The amount and interest of the SBV Loan is subject to separate regulations.
- During the term of the VAMC Bond, Bank A needs to establish a reserve (Bank Bond Reserve) of at least 20% of the value of VAMC Bond each year.
- After taking over the Secured Debt and the VAMC will either directly or authorise Bank A to deal with Borrower B. Decree 53/2013 seems to offer substantial legal supports for VAMC to enforce the Mortgage. For example, Decree 53/2013 requires all competent authorities to cooperate with VAMC to allow VAMC to enforce the security interests that it holds.
- VAMC authorises Bank A to enforce the Mortgage and recover VND 50 billion (Recovered Amount) and VND 50 billion remains to be unpaid (Remaining Debt).
- Within five business days after the earlier of (1) the last day of the term of VAMC Bond or (2) the date on which the aggregate of the Bank Bond Reserve and the Recovered Amount is equal to VND 100 billion, Bank A must (2) repay the SBV Loan and get back the VND 100 billion VAMC Bond, and (3) sell back VND 100 billion VAMC Bond to VAMC in return of the Remaining Debt. VAMC will also return the Recovered Amount less the enforcement expenses and a haircut (to be decided) for VAMC to Bank A.
- After Bank A gets back the Remaining Debt and returns the VAMC Bond to VAMC, Bank A will need to use the Bank Bond Reserve to resolve the bad debt resulted from the VAMC Bond and to continue resolve the Remaining Debt.
The most common form of security which is created over houses and buildings is mortgage (thế chấp). However, the Civil Code 2015 also provides for other forms of securities. In this blog, we will discuss whether other forms of securities could be created over houses and buildings.
Pledge (Cầm cố) – Unlikely
Pledge of property means the delivery by one party of “property” under its ownership to another party as security for the performance of an obligation. Since the term “property” includes both moveable properties and immovable properties, it is arguable that a pledge could be created over houses and buildings being immovable properties. However, Article 310.2 of the Civil Code 2015 provides that “Where an immoveable property is the subject matter of a pledge in accordance with law, the pledge of the immoveable property shall be enforceable against a third person as from the time of registration.”
Reference to “in accordance with law” suggests that pledge could only be created over an immovable property if a law specifically allows it. However, currently the Land Law 2024 and the Residentially Housing Law 2023 only specifically allow mortgages to be created over residential houses or assets attached to land.
Article 23.1 of Vietnam's 2023 Law on Real Estate Business explicitly allows real estate developers to sell future properties, such as houses, buildings, or floor areas within a building. However, the law is silent on the leasing of future properties (except for hire purchase transactions). This omission has led to uncertainty regarding the legality of such transactions.
On the one hand, leasing of future properties was clearly permitted in a similar Article of the Law on Real Estate Business 2014. Accordingly, one could argue that the omission of leasing from Article 23.1 of the Law on Real Estate Business 2023 indicates that a real estate developer cannot lease future properties.
Under Article 84.2 of the Civil Code 2015, a branch (chi nhánh) of a legal entity has the duties to perform all or parts of the legal entity’s functions. However, a branch is not allowed under the Civil Code 2015 to act as an authorized representative of a legal entity. Accordingly, it is not clear in what capacity a branch would perform the functions of a legal entity.
Logically, in order for a branch to perform all or parts of the legal entity’s functions, either
Option 1: a branch could be allowed to act as an authorized representative of a legal entity under another law; or
Option 2: a branch could perform the functions of a legal entity in its own name and capacity. In other words, a branch can perform the functions of a legal entity without needing an authorization from the parent entity and the action (or inaction) of a branch will be deemed an action or inaction of the parent entity.
The term “economic organisation” (tổ chức kinh tế) was first introduced under the Investment Law 2014 and refers to, among other things, any company or organisation incorporated in Vietnam. Over time, the term “economic organisation” has been used consistently in other legislations and allows for a consistent application of the law. However, the Land Law 2024 has introduced significant confusion as to the meaning of the term “economic organisation”. In particular, it is not clear under the Land Law 2024, if the term “economic organisation” only refers to companies or organisations, which are not controlled by foreign investors and do not include companies or organisations which are controlled by foreign investors. The lack of clarity has important implication on how the Land Law 2024 is implemented. For example, if the term “economic organisations” under the Land Law 2024 includes organisations which are controlled by foreign investors then a foreign bank branch could have a clear legal basis to take mortgage over land use rights and assets attached to land.
The corporate bond crisis in Vietnam started in 2022 during which many corporate bonds issued before September 2022 under Decree 153/2020 were defaulted by the issuers (Pre-2022 Bonds). To facilitate the potential restructuring of Pre-2022 Bonds, in 2023, the Government issued Decree 8/2023 which allows for the bond issuers and the bondholders to agree to amend the terms of a Pre-2022 Bonds including the extension of the duration for the Pre-2022 Bonds to up to two years. However, the rights of a bondholder who disagrees with a restructuring proposal for a Pre-2022 Bond are not clear.
Under Decree 8/2023, the duration and the repayment schedule of a Pre-2022 Bond could be extended if the proposed extension is approved by bondholders representing 65% or more of the total number of outstanding bonds. Decree 8/2023 further provides that for bondholders who do not agree to changes in the conditions and terms of a Pre-2022 Bond (dissenting bondholders), the issuer is required to negotiate with the dissenting bondholders. If a dissenting bondholder does not accept the proposed negotiation plan, the issuer must fully fulfill its obligations to that dissenting bondholder in accordance with the original bond issuance plan. This requirement holds even if the proposed changes have been approved by the other bondholders who hold 65% of the outstanding bonds.
Under anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, reporting entities (e.g., credit institutions) are required to be aware of several key watchlists, maintained by relevant Vietnamese authorities, to ensure compliance with their AML obligations. This blog will introduce those watchlists and discuss specific requirements related to them.
Essential watchlists under AML regulations
Under AML regulations, the Vietnamese Government maintains the following watchlists:
(1) A Blacklist (danh sách đen in Vietnamese): including (a) list of organizations and individuals involved in terrorism and terrorism financing compiled by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), and (b) a list of organizations and individuals designated as being involved in the proliferation and financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, compiled by the Ministry of National Defense (MND);
(2) A warning list/Grey list (danh sách cảnh báo in Vietnamese): A list of organizations and individuals compiled by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) to warn about those with a high risk of money laundering; and
(3) A list of Foreign politically exposed person (PEP List) (danh sách cá nhân nước ngoài có ảnh hưởng chính trị in Vietnamese): A list of foreigners who hold a senior position in foreign agencies, organizations, and international organizations, notified by the SBV.
There are no specific guidelines on how to access these watchlists or the procedure for screening data against them. However, except for the Grey List, which has not yet been published by the SBV, the Blacklist ((1)(a) and (1)(b)) and PEP List can be found via the national portals of the MPS, MND, and SBV (see embedded links).
Under the Housing Law 2023, a developer of a commercial housing project could raise financing from the following sources:
equity capital of the developer;
capital raised from joint venture, business cooperation, and contribution from other organizations or individuals (BCC Capital);
capital raised from issuance of corporate bonds, shares, and fund units;
pre-sale proceeds raised from sale and purchase agreements or hire and purchase agreements with regards to future houses signed with customers;
debt financing raised from credit institutions or finance organizations operating in Vietnam (bank loans).
In comparison with the Housing Law 2014, the Housing Law 2023 clearly includes capital raising from issuance of bonds and fund units but excludes pre-sale proceeds of leasing agreements for future houses. In this post, we will discuss each of the sources of financing for a commercial housing project. The Housing Law 2023 still does not allow a developer of a commercial housing project to raise debt financing from offshore lenders.
This post continues discussing some additional changes of the LCI 2024. For changes discussed in our Part 1, please see here.
1. Lowering the limit on total credit balance
The LCI 2024 lowers aggregate credit limit over the CI’s equity capital for a customer, a customer and its related persons over different periods. Specifically:
On 26 March 2024, the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Vietnam (the Supreme Procuracy) issued Official Letter no. 1083/VKSTC-V9 (the Official Letter) to respond to inquiries from local procuracies regarding supervision in legal proceedings regarding civil, marriage and family matters. Although these clarification and interpretation are non-binding, they constitute an important source of interpretation for the procuracy system to rely on. However, one should note that interpretation by a procurator is not binding on the court and therefore is not as important as a guidance issued by the superme court.
In this post, we will discuss some statements of the Supreme Procuracy under the Official Letter that we find interesting or noteworthy:
1) Q&A no. 34: If (i) a civil transaction is not in the required form for it to be legally effective, (ii) the obligation therein cannot be quantified, and (iii) the court cannot determine how many parts of the obligation has been performed by the obligor then (a) Articles 129.1 and 129.2 of the Civil Code 2015, which allow an otherwise invalid transaction to remain valid if two thirds of the relevant obligations have been performed, would not be applicable to recognize the validity of such transaction and (b) such civil transaction would be consider invalid.
Our comments: The Supreme Procuracy seems to have taken the view that a party (i.e., the obligor who has performed a certain amount of work under such transaction) may only seek for recognition of the validity of a civil transaction if their situation is captured under Articles 129.1 and 129.2 of the Civil Code 2015.
Although this might be an understandable deduction from the straightforward reading of Article 129’s wordings, we believe that the aforementioned party should be able to request the court to consider their claim according to Article 14.2 of the Civil Code 2015 (i.e., the court should seek to apply customary practice, analogous law, basic principles of civil law, case law, and equity law to the case if Article 129 is not applicable) instead of being rejected immediately.
There have been numerous discussions about the new direct power purchase mechanisms (DPPA) introduced under Decree 80/2024 our own briefing note. In this post, we focus on issues which are unclear under Decree 80/2024 and require more clarification. Terms defined in our briefing note will have the same meaning when used herein. These issues are:
Decree 80/2024 introduces the concept of “Authorised Electricity Retailer in Zones” (Đơn vị bán lẻ điện tại các mô hình khu, cụm được ủy quyền). However, it is not clear who will verify and determine whether an electricity retailer will qualify as an Authorised Electricity Retailer in Zones. Decree 80/2024 does not make clear if the parties to the DPPA mechanism can verify the qualification of an Authorised Electricity Retailer in Zones or will require a third party (even the authority) to do so.
To purchase power via a DPPA mechanism, a customer is required to consume an average 200,000 kWh per month. If a Consumer consumes less than 200,000 kWh per month then the DPPA relating to such Consumer may have to be terminated. However, it is not clear if the 200,000 kWh threshold includes the amount of power purchased from (1) both EVN and the RE Generator or (2) EVN only. In other words, it is not clear Decree 80/2024 requires a Consumer to purchase at least 200,000 kWh from EVN. This interpretation seems not logical but not impossible.
On 16 May 2024, the Government of Vietnam promulgated Decree 55/2024 to elaborate some articles of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights (Decree 55/2024) which replaced the Decree 99/2011 from 1 July 2024. Decree 55/2024 introduces some noteworthy amendments on requirements applied to standard form contracts (Standard Contracts) and general trading conditions (T&Cs) as follows:
Multilingual Standard Contracts and T&Cs:
Decree 55/2024 allows additional languages to be used in the Standard Contracts and T&Cs as agreed by the parties alongside Vietnamese. Previously, Decree 99/2011 only allowed the use of Vietnamese. This change accommodates international trade practices and facilitates clearer communication between parties.
Please download the pdf version here.
Decree 80/2024 outlining mechanisms for direct power purchase agreement (DPPA) between renewable energy generators and large electricity consumers (Decree 80/2024) was issued by Vietnamese Government and became effective 3 July 2024. This Decree is considered as a significant policy that aims to promote the development of renewable energy in Vietnam and enhance the competitiveness of Vietnam’s retail electricity market.
This briefing note discusses the significant highlights of DPPA mechanism to be applicable to renewable power developers, including rooftop solar power developers in Vietnam as introduced by Decree 80/2024. This post is written by Nguyen Thi Kim Anh and Ha Thanh Phuc and edited by Nguyen Quang Vu.
Under Article 27 of Decree 80/2024 on mechanism for direct sale and purchase of renewable energy with large electricity customers, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) will be entitled to suspend or terminate a Direct Power Purchase Agreement (DPPA) if there is an “act of taking advantage of the mechanism, policy for making profit”. For termination, the consequences of such act needs to be irremediable and the MOIT will need to obtain opinion from related authorities (presumably from the Ministry of Public Security).
Any large customer or any renewable energy producer enters into a DPPA will need to comply with (or “use”) the DPPA mechanism. In addition, obviously, the parties to a DPPA enter into the DPPA for the purpose of making profit (or saving costs). But Decree 80/2024 is not clear when the use of the DPPA mechanism would be considered as “taking advantage” (lợi dụng) of the mechanism or when an entity is deemed to make so much profit that the relevant DPPA may need to be suspended or terminated.