Law No. 47/2010/QH12 on credit institutions has been amended pursuant to Law No. 17/2017/QH14 (“Amended Law”) passed by the National Assembly. The Amended Law came into effect on 15 January 2018.

The Amended Law provides grounds for special control by the State Bank of Vietnam (“SBV”) against underperforming credit institutions which:

• have failed to maintain liquidity requirements;

• have accumulated losses exceeding 50% of the charter capital and reserve funds as recorded in the latest audited financial statements;

Summary

Bankruptcy in Vietnam applies to enterprises (including foreign invested enterprises), co operatives and co operative unions (hereafter collectively referred to as enterprises). Unlike certain countries, this does not apply to individuals.

Bankruptcy Law

Bankruptcy procedures are governed by the Law on Bankruptcy No. 51/2014/QH13 which came into effect on 1 January 2015:

The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).