New Guidance for Bankruptcy Proceedings in Vietnam

July 5, 2018

New Guidance for Bankruptcy Proceedings in Vietnam

On June 12, 2018, the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme People’s Procuracy, and the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam issued Joint Circular No. 07/2018/TTLT-BTP-VKSNDTC-TANDTC, on coordination in the enforcement of court decisions on bankruptcy. Joint Circular 07 comes into force on August 1, 2018.

The joint circular provides detailed guidelines on a number of issues pertaining to the order and procedures for enforcement of court decisions on bankruptcy. Of note, it sets a deadline of five business days, from the receipt of a court’s notice of acceptance of a petition to open bankruptcy proceedings, for the civil judgment enforcement agency to issue a decision to temporarily suspend the enforcement of a judgment against the assets of an insolvent company, except for judgments requiring the company to pay compensation for loss of life, health, or honor or to pay salary to its employees. If the court then refuses to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, or makes a decision to suspend the bankruptcy proceedings after they have begun, the civil judgment enforcement agency must, within five business days, revoke the decision on temporary suspension and continue to enforce the judgment in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments.

When bankrupt companies are the beneficiaries of other legally effective judgments or decisions, the civil judgment enforcement agency will continue to enforce such judgments or decisions accordingly. The bailiff in charge will simultaneously notify the civil judgment enforcement result to the asset management officers and asset management enterprises and the judge in charge of the bankruptcy process in order to redistribute the receivable assets.

In addition, for the disposal of liquidated assets which were held for sale before the issuance of the decision on declaration of bankruptcy, if the judge decides on selling the assets of the insolvent company after initiating the bankruptcy process to ensure adequate funds to cover the bankruptcy but fails to sell such assets, and thereafter decides on a declaration of bankruptcy for the company and transfers the case to the civil judgment enforcement department for enforcement, the bailiff will request the asset management officer to carry out the valuation of the assets and the sale will be conducted by auction.

It is anticipated that under the provisions of the joint circular, the coordination between the court and other agencies during the process of bankruptcy settlement will be improved, resulting in effective mechanisms to smoothly handle bankruptcies and the restructuring process for insolvency cases.

Related Professionals

Thu Thi Anh Nguyen

Associate, T&G Law Firm LLC (TGVN)

Vietnam

+84 24 3772 8811

Email

Thomas J. Treutler

Partner and Managing Director, Vietnam

Vietnam

+84 28 628 45678

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

November 15, 2024

Changes to Domain Name Dispute Resolution Under Vietnam’s New Internet Decree

Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology. The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below. Removal of Prescriptive Actions Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action. By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect. Deactivation of Domain Names Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration. Clearer Criteria for Dispute Resolution Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith. Previously,

November 11, 2024

Vietnam’s Digital Hub Aspirations Will Open Opportunities for Investors

The Vietnamese government has demonstrated a strong commitment to building a digital government, digital economy, and digital society through its recently issued national strategy on digital infrastructure. Under Decision No. 1132/QD-TTg dated October 19, 2024, on “Digital Infrastructure Strategy to 2025 with Orientation to 2030,” the government will create supportive conditions for both domestic and international businesses to invest in digital infrastructure with cybersecurity as a priority. Recognized as vital to the economy, this digital infrastructure will consist of four main components: (i) telecommunications and internet infrastructure, (ii) data infrastructure, (iii) physical-digital infrastructure, and (iv) digital utility infrastructure, including digital technology as a service. Key goals for 2025 include universal fiber optic access for households, 100% 5G coverage across all provinces and cities, deployment of at least two new international undersea fiber optic cables, establishment of AI data centers, development of green-standard data centers, and platforms for IoT, AI, big data, blockchain, and cybersecurity. By 2030, goals include fiber access with speeds of at least 1 Gbps, 5G coverage for 99% of the population, readiness for 6G trials, six additional international undersea fiber optic cables, development of a hyperscale data center, and positioning Vietnam as a digital hub. To achieve these goals, the government has outlined some core tasks, creating significant opportunities for both foreign and domestic investors: Developing telecommunications and internet infrastructure for widespread fiber optic and 5G access, while preparing for emerging technologies like 6G, Open RAN, satellite, and IpV6. Telecommunication enterprises will jointly invest in and share the use of international fiber optic cable routes to ensure efficient capacity utilization and optimize investment capital. Attracting foreign and domestic investment to establish hyperscale data centers and cloud computing services that meet global standards. Creating physical-digital infrastructure by integrating technology across key sectors such as transportation, energy, healthcare,

October 21, 2024

Thai Court Decision Moves Design Assessment Closer to International Standards

Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression

October 2, 2024

Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Thailand: Procedural Notes for Practitioners

As Thailand is a contracting state of the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, international arbitral awards can, in principle, be enforced in Thailand. However, not all awards will necessarily be enforceable. The Arbitration Act BE 2545 (2002) gives courts the discretion to deny the enforcement of an award if the court determines that enforcing it would be contrary to “public order or the good morals of the people” (often referred to as “public policy”). Similarly, the Arbitration Act allows a court to set aside a domestic award if its recognition would violate public policy. This discretionary power of the court is prescribed by the law and does not require any party to make an argument on public policy grounds to trigger such power. A recent Supreme Court judgment demonstrates that a court considering an award will review the legality of the arbitral proceedings as well as the content of the award. In this case, the Supreme Court set aside an award on the grounds that it violated public policy because it was the result of arbitration that did not proceed in accordance with the relevant law. Under Thai bankruptcy law, after the Bankruptcy Court accepts a request for rehabilitation of a debtor, all civil proceedings against that debtor, including arbitration proceedings, must be stayed until the court orders otherwise or until the rehabilitation case ceases. In this matter before the Supreme Court, however, the arbitrator continued with the arbitration and went on to render an award even after the court had accepted the request for rehabilitation. The award was later challenged to be set aside on the grounds that continuing with the arbitration was against public policy. While setting aside the award was arguably unnecessary, in this case (as the relevant bankruptcy law

You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

Industries

Practices

July 5, 2018