New amendment denies dual roles for heads of CIs
New amendment denies dual roles for heads of CIs
Under the new amendment of the Law on Credit Institutions (CIs) to come into effect on January 15, 2018, executives of credit institutions are not permitted to be members of another enterprise’s board of directors (BOD).
On November 20, the National Assembly (NA) enacted a few revisions on administrative positions, such as members of the BODs, the Members’ Councils, and control boards, posing a dilemma to a high number of CEOs at credit institutions.
Specifically, Article 34(3) stipulates that director generals (directors), deputy generals (deputy directors), and holders of equivalent titles may not concurrently hold key posts in other pro-profit organisations.
The new revision of the code would most likely force executives of financial intermediaries out of their current seat either at banks or at pro-profit enterprises.
At the moment lots of figures serve in multiple high-ranking roles, such as Do Quang Hien (SHB’s chair of the BOD and SHS’s chair of the management board), Duong Cong Minh (Sacombank’ chairman for tenure and president of Him Lam Group), Do Minh Phu (TPBank’s chair of the BOD and president of Doji Group), Ho Hung Anh (Techcombank’s chair of the BOD and senior vice president of Masan Group), and Dang Khac Vy (VIB’s chair of the BOD and president of Mareven Food Holdings).
The list of executives in contemporaneous holdings goes on, for instance Nguyen Thi Nga – SeABank’s chair of BOD/president of BRG Group/member of management board of multiple enterprises like Thang Long GTC, Hanoi Toserco, Thang Loi Hotel, Hilton Hanoi, OSC Vietnam, Vu Van Tien – ABBank’s chair of BOD and president of Geleximco, Vo Quoc Thang – Kien Long Bank’s chair and president/CEO of Dong Tam Group, Thai Huong – Bac A Bank’s general director and president of TH True Milk Co ., Ltd, Le Thi Bang Tam – HDBank’s chair of BOD and president of Vinamilk.
Addressing the situation, several banks’ chief administrators asserted the postings was mandatory, therefore they had no choice in accepting various titles. A certain number of CEOs leaned towards preserving their seats in the financial sector, whereas the rest would wait for the upcoming shareholders’ meetings to make the final decision.
