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

May 15, 2020

Decree 35 Provides Important Guidance on Vietnam’s New Competition Law

Subscribe to Updates

On March 24, 2020, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 35/2020/ND-CP detailing a number of articles of the Competition Law (Decree 35). Decree 35 took effect on May 15, 2020, and provides much-needed elaboration on various ambiguous issues under the 2018 Competition Law, which has been in effect since July 1, 2019. Notably, it clarifies the conditions triggering the restrictions on anti-competitive agreements and economic concentration (e.g., M&A transactions).

1. Definition of Relevant Market

“Relevant market” is a key term used for determining whether entering into an agreement with anti-competitive elements or carrying out an M&A transaction would be restricted or subject to any requisite conditions under Vietnamese law. The definition of relevant market is based on the determination of the relevant product market and the relevant geographical market. Decree 35 provides new guidance for such determination by the National Competition Commission (NCC), the new competition authority.

For determination of the “relevant product market”, Decree 35 sets out new regulations for determining the interchangeability or substitutability of goods and services:

  • In terms of characteristics – Under the previous regulations, it could be argued that the factors to be considered to determine interchangeability were only suitable for goods, and did not sufficiently cover the characteristics of services. Decree 35 has sealed this gap and stipulates factors which could capture the characteristics of both goods and services, including features, compositions, technical functions, side effects on users, users’ absorbability, and/or other specific attributes and qualities.
  • In terms of price – Decree 35 newly sets out that goods/services are considered substitutable if the difference in price between the goods/services in similar transaction conditions is not greater than 5%. However, no definition of “similar transaction conditions” is given, making the application of this provision less straightforward than it may seem.

For determination of the “relevant geographical market”, Decree 35 introduces some new factors for determining the boundaries of geographic areas, including consumption habits and cost and time for customers to purchase goods/services.

2. Prohibited Anti-Competitive Agreements

According to Articles 12.3 and 12.4 of the 2018 Competition Law, various types of anti-competitive agreements will be prohibited if they cause or are likely to cause a “significant anti-competitive effect” in the market. Decree 35 provides the clarification that an anti-competitive agreement would not be considered to cause or be likely to cause such “significant anti-competitive effect” in the following cases:

  • For enterprises in the same relevant market, the combined market share of the enterprises intending to participate in the agreement is less than 5%.
  • For enterprises intending to participate in the agreement from different stages in the same chain of production, distribution, and supply of specific goods/services, the market share of each participating enterprise is less than 15%.

3. Restricted M&A Transactions

M&A Transactions Subject to Notification Requirement

According to the 2018 Competition Law, if an intended M&A transaction reaches any of the thresholds set out by law, the enterprises intending to participate in such transaction must submit a notification to the NCC prior to carrying out the transaction. Decree 35 sheds more light on these thresholds by determining that the thresholds triggering the notification requirement include the following:

  1. Total assets in the Vietnamese market of each enterprise intending to participate in the transaction, or the group of affiliated companies of which such enterprise is a member, is worth VND 3,000 billion (approximately USD 126.3 million) or more in the financial year preceding the planned year of the transaction; or
  2. Total revenue in the Vietnamese market of each enterprise intending to participate in the transaction, or the group of affiliated companies of which such enterprise is a member, is VND 3,000 billion (approximately USD 126.3 million) or more in the financial year preceding the planned year of the transaction; or
  3. Value of the transaction is at least VND 1,000 billion (approximately USD 42.1 million); or
  4. The combined market share of the enterprises intending to participate in the transaction is at least 20% of the relevant market in the financial year preceding the planned year of the transaction. It is worth noting that this combined market share threshold under Decree 35 is stricter than the threshold set out under the prior notification regime (30% to 50%).

The foregoing thresholds would change if the enterprises intending to participate in the M&A transaction are credit institutions, insurance companies, or securities companies.

This notification requirement is also applicable to M&A transactions implemented outside of Vietnam. In this case, the thresholds under (i), (ii) and (iv) above would be applied.

Prohibited M&A Transactions

As mentioned above, under the 2018 Competition Law, if an intended M&A transaction causes or is likely to cause a “significant anti-competitive effect,” such transaction will be prohibited. Decree 35 elaborates on this provision by providing that M&A transactions will be permitted (will not be considered to cause or be likely to cause a significant anti-competitive effect) if the combined market share of all entities intending to participate in the transaction is below 20% of the relevant market.

If the combined market share of all entities intending to participate in the transaction is 20% or above, the NCC will further assess whether such transaction is prohibited based on established criteria, including mathematical formulas.

For more information on Decree 35, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 8, 2022
Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission has amended the guidelines prohibiting large purchasers from setting unfair credit terms for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The new guidelines, which were published in the Government Gazette on August 17, 2022, revise the definition of SMEs and clarify the duties of concerned parties. The original guidelines, which took effect in December 2021, set a favorable maximum period for credit terms for SMEs selling products or services to a third-party purchaser. Prescribing longer credit terms than the mandatory period would constitute an unfair trade practice in violation of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017). In defining what businesses are considered SMEs, the guidelines set thresholds for the number of employees and amount of annual turnover. The amended guidelines maintain these thresholds, but the new guidelines require that both employee-number and turnover thresholds be met in order for a business to be considered an SME. In contrast, the original guidelines only required either the employee-number threshold or the turnover threshold to be met. This amendment will likely mean that fewer business operators qualify as SMEs. Accordingly, two types of businesses are defined as SMEs under the guidelines: Manufacturers of goods with up to 200 employees and an annual turnover of no more than THB 500 million (approximately USD 13.5 million); or Service providers or wholesale or retail businesses with up to 100 employees and an annual turnover of no more than THB 300 million (approximately USD 8.1 million). To benefit from protection under the new guidelines against unfair credit terms, SMEs must provide documents proving the number of employees and the amount of annual turnover to trade partners that purchase goods or services from them. The new guidelines come into force on September 16, 2022. For more information on the unfair credit term guidelines, or
Read More
August 23, 2022
Indemnification clauses are common contractual provisions in many jurisdictions including Thailand, but enforcing them can be challenging in the eyes of Thai law. In general, to “indemnify” means to hold another party free of responsibility for a potential risk or loss. When one party (i.e., the “indemnitor”) indemnifies another party (i.e., the “indemnitee”), the indemnitor is obligated to pay or compensate the indemnitee for any liabilities or losses (within the scope agreed in the contract). In this way, an indemnification clause can be a useful provision to shift responsibility for potential risks from one party to another. In some jurisdictions, “indemnity” includes the recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred by the indemnitee. It may even carry with it the duty to defend or fund the defense of any claim brought against the indemnitee. If that is the case, even though the contract does not say so, the indemnitor would have to hire an attorney and pay the legal fees for the indemnitee. In contracts that contain an indemnification clause, the indemnity would typically include the duty to defend. Let’s use a case example to elaborate this point. In this hypothetical case, a supplier of machinery agrees to indemnify and defend a retailer against claims from the retailer’s customer in the event that a purchased machine becomes defective. As a result, besides being responsible for the damages that the retailer may suffer based on contract law or negligence, the supplier must also pay for the lawyers to defend the retailer if the customer decides to sue. In Thailand, this kind of indemnification clause may not be enforceable. Unlike contract rules in many jurisdictions, Thai contract law is silent on “contractual indemnity.” It is commonly understood in Thailand (and confirmed by Supreme Court decision 7943/2542) that “indemnity” means “compensation” under section 222
Read More
July 12, 2022
Before the issuance in late 2019 of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand’s Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses, which took effect in February 2020, Thai law made little mention of franchising as a business model—despite the great popularity of franchising in the country. The guidelines, which were issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), partly made up for the absence of a single, codified franchising law in the country and offered valuable direction on how franchisors and franchisees should operate in compliance with Thai law. One of the most significant conditions introduced by the original guidelines in February 2020 was a requirement for franchisors to provide a right of first refusal to their existing franchisees before opening a new franchise outlet within current franchisees’ operating vicinity. An update to the guidelines addressing the right of first refusal was issued in August 2020. Most recently, a second update was announced on July 13, 2021. It was published in the Government Gazette on August 19, 2021, and came into force on the following day. The August 2021 update further revised this provision, and the updated guidelines now adopt a less restrictive approach for franchisors in relation to this first-refusal requirement. Under the updated guidelines, a franchisor who decides to open a new outlet, whether it will be operated by the franchisor or by another franchisee or person, must notify the existing franchisee located in closest proximity to the intended location, and provide the franchisee with a right of first refusal for a period of 30 days. However, the franchisor does not have to provide the closest franchisee with a right of first refusal if the franchisee’s existing performance does not meet the franchisor’s criteria as specified and communicated to the franchisee in advance. In determining what
Read More
March 7, 2022
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins wrote the Thailand chapter for Licensing 2022, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Getting the Deal Through to licensing in 17 countries around the world. Two specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office—Alan Adcock, partner and deputy director of intellectual property, and Kasama Sriwatanakul, senior associate—authored the Licensing 2021 Thailand chapter, which covers the following topics: Laws: Unfair Contract Terms Act, Trade Competition Act, pre-contractual disclosure, registration of international licensing, implied obligations, Civil and Commercial Code, Trademark Act, Patent Act, and Trade Secrets Act. Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, PCT, TRIPs. Contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, evidence of use, licensing unregistered IP, opposability requirements, sub-licensing, co-owners, trade secrets, and copyright. Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, import/export restrictions, improvements and modifications, user restrictions, and legal developments. Competition law: Trade Competition Act, specific restrictions on licensing agreements, and significant court decisions. Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages. Termination: Conditions, indemnity, agency, and impact on sub-licenses. Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee bankruptcy on licensor and vice versa, protection, and rights to terminate. Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforcement, injunctions, contractual waivers Royalties and payments: Currency conversion, tax, remittance restrictions, and jurisdiction-specific payments. The Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to Licensing 2022. To browse all 17 jurisdictions covered by the guide, please visit the Getting the Deal Through website.
Read More