Vietnamese plastic producer Rang Dong Holding JSC recently lost a lawsuit against Japan’s Sojitz Pla-Net Corporation regarding their shareholding agreement and is obligated to return nearly VND157 billion (US$6.4 million) to the Japanese corporation and pay for related fees and charges.
In 2017, Sojitz Pla-Net Corporation and Rang Dong Holding inked a share transfer contract in which the former acquired five million shares at Rang Dong Long An Plastic JSC, a member of Rang Dong Holding, at over VND174 billion ($7.2 million).
The Japanese firm made full payments for the batch.
After the share transfer, Sojitz accused Rang Dong Holding of failing to fulfill its obligations as stated in the contract.
As a result, the Japanese corporation terminated the contract and requested Rang Dong to return 90 percent of the paid share cost, equivalent to nearly VND157 billion.
Since Rang Dong refused to return the amount, Sojitz filed a lawsuit at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC).
In July last year, an SIAC arbitration council issued a ruling that Sojitz won the lawsuit and Rang Dong had to return VND157 billion to the Japanese firm.
The Vietnamese plastic producer was also required to pay Sojitz the interest of the amount, at 10 percent per year from April 1, 2020 to the payment date.
Rang Dong Holding was also told to pay fees and charges totaling S$371,563 ($271,100) to the arbitration council and SIAC.
However, Rang Dong did not pay the amount to Sojitz and lodged a complaint, saying that the ruling was against the principles of free and voluntary commitments and agreements.
Rang Dong also claimed that the proof provided by Sojitz was illicit and their contract included unreasonable articles.
It objected to the entire ruling.
The Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court said it did not recognize the SIAC’s ruling in January this year.
However, Sojitz later appealed against the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court’s decision, forcing the court to review documents and litigation results before it accepted the Japanese corporation’s appeal and agreed to the SIAC’s ruling.