Venture North Law Firm

The table in this update sets out the potential inconsistencies between agreements on ROFO, ROFR, Tag Along and Drag Along and the transfer procedures under Article 52 of the Enterprise Law 2020.

In a shareholder agreement (or joint venture agreement) between members of a multiple member limited liability companies (Multiple LLC), the members often agree on various transfer restrictions such as right of first offer (ROFO), right of first refusal (ROFR), tag along or drag along rights. These transfers are intended for the parties to control the ownership structure of the Multiple LLC and their exit from the Multiple LLC. However, implementing such agreements on transfer restriction may be inconsistent with the statutory transfer restrictions provided in Article 52 of the Enterprise Law 2020. Therefore, a shareholder agreement relating to a Multiple LLC should have specific provision to resolve such inconsistencies.

The table below sets out the potential inconsistencies between agreements on ROFO, ROFR, Tag Along and Drag Along and the transfer procedures under Article 52 of the Enterprise Law 2020.

 

Article 52 of the Enterprise Law 2020

Potential inconsistencies

If a member of a Multiple LLC wishes to transfer its capital contribution (the selling member) then such member must offer to sell its capital contribution portion to all other members in proportion to their respective capital contribution portions in the company on equal terms of offer.

 

In case of an agreed ROFR, the selling member must have an offer to purchase its capital contribution from a third party before approaching the non-selling member. This would mean that the selling member may have to approach and offer to sell its capital contribution to a third party before offering to the non-selling members. This could be viewed as contrary to Article 52 of the Enterprise Law 2020.

 

In case of an agreed ROFO, the selling member could ask the non-selling member to submit an offer to purchase the selling member’s capital contribution instead of offering to sell to the non-selling members. This could also be viewed as being contrary to Article 52 of the Enterprise Law 2020.

The selling member may transfer its capital contribution to a non-member on the same conditions as the offer applicable to other members when the other members of the company do not purchase or do not purchase in full within thirty days from the date of the offer.

In case of an agreed ROFR and ROFO, the parties usually agree that a non-selling member could offer to purchase from the selling member ore capital contribution than the non-selling member’s pro-rata portion if other non-members do not purchase their pro-rata portion. However, Article 52 only contemplates that the selling member could transfer to non-members.

 

Article 52 provides that the offer to non-members must be on the same terms as the offer to non-selling members. This could be inconsistent with an agreed ROFR and ROFO which allow the selling member to make an offer to non-member which is no more favourable than the offer to non-selling member.

 

In some case, the time limit of 30 days provided in Article 52 is not sufficient for (1) the non-selling members to respond to the offer provided by the selling members and (2) the parties to obtain necessary approval (e.g., M&A Approval or merger filing) to complete the transfer.

 

In case of a tag along or drag along, the non-selling member could join the sale to the third party purchaser either voluntarily (in case of a tag along) or involuntarily (in case of a drag along). This may be inconsistent with Article 52 since technically, the tag along member or drag along member will have to offer to sell their capital contribution to the selling member first before selling to the third party purchaser.

This post is written by Nguyen Quang Vu with research assistance by Le Minh Thuy.

Please Login or Register for Free now to view all updates and articles

In addition to free-to-view updates and articles, you can also subscribe to the full Legal Centrix Vietnam Service including access to:

  • Overview notes on the law
  • Thousands of high quality translations of legislation covering all key business areas
  • Legal and tax updates
  • Articles on important legal and tax issues
  • Weekly email alerts
  • Sophisticated web platform and search

Legal Centrix is trusted by top law and accounting firms.

Venture North Law Firm

Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw) is a Vietnamese law firm established by Nguyen Quang Vu, a business lawyer with more than 17 years of experience. VNLaw is a boutique professional law firm focusing on corporate, commercial and M&A practices in Vietnam. Our goal is to be an efficient, innovative and client-friendly firm. To achieve that goal, we are designing a working environment and a compensation system which encourage our lawyers to provide more efficient services to clients and to focus on the long term benefit of the firm.

Click here to view the author's profile

Author

Tags

  • Vietnam
  • General
  • Legal Updates
  • Corporate Governance

Related Content

Recent updates

Cookies On
Our Website
We use cookies on our website. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our site and how to change your cookie settings please click here to view our cookie policy. By continuing to use this site without changing your settings you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.