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.
In a criminal case involving a business, from time to time, the courts will need to decide on the civil liability of the criminal and other persons including those who are not aware of the crime relating to the case. For example, if A commits a fraud against B and uses the monies obtained from B to repay a debt between A and C who is not aware of A’s crime. In addition to deciding on whether A is guilty or not, the court will need to decide whether (1) requesting A to compensate B for the loss that B suffers or (2) requesting C to return the monies C receives from A to B (assuming that A is convicted). However, it appears that the court does not have a consistent approach. In this post, we discuss the approaches that the courts took in some significant criminal cases for the last decade.
Huyen Nhu Case – 2014
Huynh Thu Huyen Nhu was the head of a transaction office of Vietinbank (a large State-owned bank). Huyen Nhu has offered high interest rate (exceeding the interest rate cap provided by law) to various companies to convince them to deposit their monies with a branch of Vietinbank. After those companies made the deposit under instructions of Huyen Nhu, Huyen Nhu used fake documents and payment instruction to cause Vietinbank to transfer the deposit to Huyen Nhu’s designated accounts. Huyen Nhu used most of the amount obtained through her fraud to repay her debts to several individuals. The damages caused by Huyen Nhu is reported to be around VND 4000 billion (about US$ 200 million at such time), being largest bank fraud at the time.
In addition to convicting Huyen Nhu of the crime of committing fraud to appropriate properties (lừa đảo chiếm đoạt tài sản), the court also requested Huyen Nhu to compensate all the relevant companies for the losses that such companies suffer. The relevant companies took the view that they are not victim of Huyen Nhu’s fraudulent acts but Vietinbank is. Therefore, the relevant companies requested Vietinbank to repay them the deposits they made with Vietinbank. However, the court rejected such view and considered those companies to be victims of Huyen Nhu’s fraudulent acts. The court confiscated the amount of interests that Huyen Nhu paid her lenders but did not require these lenders to return the entire amount they received from Huyen Nhu.
On 22 October 2024, the Government of Vietnam issued Decree 135/2024 on mechanisms and policies incentivising the development of “self-generation and self-consumption rooftop solar power” (Self-Consumption RSP). Unfortunately, there is still a great deal of ambiguity in the provisions of Decree 135/2024 that might create unnecessary confusion in applying and administering the implementation of Decree 135/2024. Please see our discussion of a few ambiguous provisions of Decree 135/2024 below.
1) Potential risk from Decree 135/2024’s scope of application – Decree 135/2024 is said to only govern Self-Consumption RSP [systems] that are installed on the roof of construction works that were invested and constructed in strict compliance with law, including regulations on investment, construction, land, environment, safety, firefighting and fire prevention. As such, any noncompliance of the underlying building may cause the rooftop solar system to not be recognised as a Self-Consumption RSP system and therefore cannot enjoy the incentives policies under Decree 135/2024. It is unclear (i) whether mitigated noncompliance in the past (before the Self-Consumption RSP system is installed) would cause the building to be considered not “invested and constructed in strict compliance with law” and therefore prevents the installation of Self-Consumption RSP system on said building, and (i) whether noncompliance that arises after the Self-Consumption RSP system is installed and operated would affect the applicability of Decree 135/2024 to such system and what the outcome would be.
The National Assembly of Vietnam adopted a new law (the Amended Investment Law) to amend and supplement several provisions in Investment Law 2020. Most provisions of the Amended Investment Law take effect from 1 January 2025, except certain cases will take effect from 1 July 2025. In this post, we discuss some notable points in this Amended Investment Law.
Special Investment Procedures
The key point in this Amended Investment Law is the introduction of a special investment procedure (Special Procedure) which allows the eligible investors in certain high-tech sectors to obtain the investment registration certificate (IRC) and implement its project in a shorter time and reduces procedures, including waiver of various approvals and procedures.
The project utilizing the Special Procedure are exempt from various standard approvals and procedures, including IPA, technology appraisal, environmental impact assessment report, detail planning, construction permit and other approvals and permits in construction, fire fighting and prevention. The issued IRC serves as document for land lease or conversion of land use purpose. However, before commencing construction, investors are obliged to submit a report on the project's economic-technical construction investment, along with the corresponding appraisal report, to the relevant Authority.
This Special Procedure prevails relevant regulations under other laws enacted before 15 January 2025 when there is any difference between the Special Procedure and such other laws. For projects having IPA or IRC before the effective date of Amended Investment Law and eligible for utilizing the Special Procedure, the investor of such project can choose to apply the Special Procedure. The Special Procedure is still subject to further guidance from the Government and Ministry of Planning and Investment.
Vietnam’s housing market has experienced rapid growth in recent years, driven by urbanization, economic development, and increasing demand. A shortage in housing supply in some big cities currently has prompted policymakers to enhance land policies to unlock resources for housing project development. As new Land Law 2024 seems to fall short in resolving the land supply constraints for residential development, on 30 November 2024, the National Assembly adopted Resolution 171 on piloting implementation of commercial housing projects through agreements on voluntary assignment of land use rights (LUR) or use of existing LUR (Resolution 171).
With its introduction of a more flexible mechanism for commercial housing development, Resolution 171 is anticipated to address the housing supply shortage. However, developers will need to wait for a detailed decree to ensure the feasibility and compliance of their proposed projects.
In the FLC and Van Thinh Phat cases, the authorities have accused the controlling shareholders of FLC and Van Thinh Phat of various crimes including crimes relating to public issuance of securities, stock manipulation or private issuance of bonds. In an apparent attempt to prevent these crimes to be recommitted, in December 2024, the National Assembly passes some important amendments to the Securities Law 2019 (2024 Amendment). The Amendment takes effect from 1 January 2025 and could impose significant risks to public companies and their shareholders in Vietnam.
Sweeping changes to the liability regime for public companies, their shareholders and advisors
Under the 2024 Amendment, organization or individuals participating in the process of preparing applicable files or reporting documents relating to securities activities and securities market (hoạt động chứng khoán và thị trường chứng khoán) will be responsible for ensuring that:
such application files and reporting documents are legal, accurate, true and complete; and
such application files and reporting documents have clear and not misleading information and contain all material content which affect decision of the authorities, organisations and investors.
Advisors, who provide advice on the application files and reporting documents relating to securities activities and securities market, must be honest and prudent and must ensure that all analysis is reasonable and prudent.
Before the 2024 Amendment, the Securities Law 2019 only imposes liabilities to issuers, underwriters, auditors and “certifying organisations” when they conduct a public offering of securities or register their securities for listing or trading. However, by referring to all securities activities and securities market, the 2024 Amendment appears to expand the liability regimes to apply to all activities in the market including those which are normally not subject to such liability such as (1) private offering of securities, (3) public disclosures by a public companies or their shareholders, (4) secondary trading of securities by investors, and (4) advisors who are involved in these activities.
In practice, it would be very difficult for public companies and their shareholders and advisors to ensure that all of the documents and information relating to their public disclosures and securities trading activities do not contain misleading information and contain all material information, which affect decision by not only investors but also the authorities and other organisations.
On 24 September 2024, the Ministry of Public Securities (MPS) published the draft law on personal data protection (Draft PDPL). Compared to Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL introduces several significant points related to personal data protection. This blog will explore the key highlights and implications of these new provisions.
1) Expanded scope of application
As compared to Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL broadens its scope to cover additional entities, being “agencies, organizations, and individuals collecting and processing personal data of foreigners within Vietnamese territories.” (Article 1.2(dd). This provision appears to enhance the protection of personal data belonging to foreign nationals. However, it remains unclear whether the provision applies solely to foreigners present in Vietnam or also to those residing abroad. The ambiguity lies in the interpretation of the phrase “within Vietnamese territories”. If it extends to foreigners outside Vietnam, it could impose significant compliance burdens on Vietnamese enterprises processing personal data of foreign nationals.
Furthermore, it is confusing that the Draft PDPL does not address the existing ambiguity in the scope of application under Decree 13/2023. Instead, it introduces another type of applicable entity that could potentially create even greater uncertainty.
2) Definition of personal data associated to “citizen”
Unlike Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL defines both basic personal data and, seemingly, sensitive personal data as being specifically associated to “citizens”. It is unclear why Draft PDPL limits its personal data protection to citizens rather than to all individuals, regardless of nationality or status. This approach is not in line with the term “personal data” in GDPR (which refers to that of a natural person). Furthermore, limiting protections to citizens could also infringe on the rights of non-citizens and stateless people, potentially conflicting with Article 21 of the 2013 Constitution, which guarantees privacy rights to "everyone," not just citizens.
Additionally, the term “citizen” is ambiguous, as it is unclear whether it refers to Vietnamese citizens only or also encompasses foreign citizens. If the former interpretation is adopted, this would be inconsistent with the broader scope outlined in Article 1.2(dd) of the Draft PDPL, which governs the personal data of foreigners. If the latter interpretation is adopted, it would not be reasonable for the Draft PDPL and Vietnamese authorities to govern personal data of foreign citizens (especially those who are not in Vietnam).
This post continues discussing some additional changes of the Law on Credit Institution 2024 (LCI 2024). For changes discussed in our Part 1, please see here, in Part 2, please see here.
1. More comment on security agent
As discussed in Part 2, LCI 2024 allows security agent operation. However, the relevant provision of LCI 2024 has the following limitations:
1.1. such provision does not clarify the nature of security agent and whether it is the relation of representative (đại diện) or authorization (ủy quyền) as stipulated under the Civil Code. Under LCI 2024, the activity of security agent is implemented under the provisions of relevant laws, without further clarifying which relevant laws are; and
1.2. LCI 2024 does not provide any details on what a security agent can do (such as definition of security agent or the role of the security agent).
2. New classification for letter of credit
LCI 2024 no longer classifies letter of credit operation as a payment service provided via account (dịch vụ thanh toán qua tài khoản). LCI 2024 now defines letter of credit as a form of credit extension through the issuance, confirmation, negotiation, payment and return of letter of credit.
One can assume that where possible (i.e., not prohibited by international treaties) Vietnamese law will likely provide better treatment to Vietnamese investors over foreign investor. However, in the examples discussed below, foreign investors do get better treatment over Vietnamese investors:
Investor protection - The biggest advantage that many foreign investors have over Vietnamese investors is the ability of the foreign investor to make a claim against Vietnamese Government before international arbitration under various investment treaties that Vietnam has signed with several countries. Vietnamese investors have no ability to do so. The Government of Vietnam has indeed been subject to several investor-State disputes and is well aware of the risk that it can be sued if it mistreats foreign investors.
The Official Gazette (Công Báo) publishes legal instruments (văn bản quy phạm pháp luật) issued in accordance with the Law on Law. However, the Official Gazette also has a section which publishes “other legal documents” (Văn bản pháp luật khác). It is not clear if these “other legal documents”, which are not legal instruments, will have the force of law.
The Law on Legal Instruments (or Law on Laws) defines a legal provision (quy phạm pháp luật) to mean a general rule of conduct, with universal binding force, applied repeatedly to agencies, organizations, and individuals within the entire country or a specific administrative unit, as prescribed by a competent state agency in this Law and ensured by the State. A legal instrument (văn bản quy phạm pháp luật) is a document containing legal provisions issued in accordance with the Law on Legal Instruments and must be published on the Official Gazette. The Law on Legal Instrument prohibits the issuance of documents which are not a legal instrument but which contain legal provisions. Since the “other legal documents” published on Official Gazette are not issued in accordance with the Law on Legal Instruments, they should not contain a legal provision and should not have the force of law.
It is unclear whether indirect ownership or control is taken into account when determining a company is the parent company of another company. Under Article 195.1 of the Enterprise Law 2020, a company will be deemed to be a parent company of another company in one of the following circumstances:
the former owns more than 50% of the charter capital or the total number of ordinary shares of the latter;
the former has the right to directly or indirectly appoint “the majority or all directors of the Board, Director or the General Director” of the latter; or
the former has the right to amend the charter of the latter.
The above definition makes it unclear because indirect control is only clearly mentioned in the case of appointing Board directors and Director (General Director) (i.e. the second limb).
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.