Before it became bogged down in difficulties, Eximbank experienced golden days in its first years of operation, especially after SMBC (Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation) poured $225 million into the bank in 2007 to acquire 15 percent of Eximbank shares.

The appearance of the Japanese leading finance group then helped Eximbank become one of the leading joint stock commercial banks in terms of profit in 2010-2011.

No one could imagine that such a strong brand would weaken quickly because of the ‘cracks’ in the board of directors, which led to the bank missing the restructuring process and being left behind by rivals.

After Le Hung Dung resigned as chair of the board of directors in 2015, Eximbank continuously changed its presidents. Behind every change was ruthless wars among groups of shareholders.

High-ranking personnel changes occurred after Le Minh Quoc took office as president of the bank in 2015-2020. The struggle among groups of shareholders lasted many years as large shareholders could not find a common voice.

In 2016, Eximbank could not convene the annual shareholders’ meeting because of disagreement about the number, either 9 or 11, for the board of directors.

Nguyen Thi Xuan Loan, representing two large groups of shareholders, holding 20 percent of shares, and the refusal to add Pham Huu Phuong to the list of candidates for posts in the board of directors were the reasons why the shareholders’ meeting could not be held as planned.

At that time, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) requested to check related information about candidates nominated as members of the board of directors.

2019 was considered the peak time of the dispute over the post of the bank president, and the power dispute among large groups of shareholders.

On March 22, 2019, Eximbank Board of Directors released Resolution 112 appointing Luong Thi Cam Tu to the post of president and dismissed Le Minh Quoc. However, Quoc sued Eximbank members of the board of directors, requesting the HCM City People’s Court to apply temporary emergency measures.

The court approved the proposal, and then removed it in May 2019. Tu continued to hold the post of Eximbank president in accordance with Resolution 112. However, just one day later, on May 15, 2019, Quoc was the person who signed Resolution 231, which terminated the validity of Resolution 112 which appointed Tu to the post of president.

Quoc later resigned from his post, and Cao Xuan Binh became the bank’s president, commencing May 22, 2019.

But one month later, Ninh resigned from his post, citing the prolonged disputes among groups of shareholders.

Ninh was then replaced by Yasuhiro Saitoh. Prior to that, SMBC nominated Yasuhiro Saitoh as a member of the board of directors. But in May 2019, SMBC sent a notice to Eximbank, affirming that since May 18, 2019, Saitoh was no longer the representative of SMBC.

The power dispute at Eximbank never ended. Before the 2021 shareholders’ meeting, Eximbank caused a big surprise when issuing two resolutions within one day to dismiss the chair of the board of directors, and then appoint the same person to the post.

The noteworthy point was that the two contradictory decisions were released based on the same voting results at the meeting of the board of directors, and the later decision was made just 25 minutes after the previous decision.

In 2022, just two days after the 2021 shareholders’ meeting (which was postponed before because of Covid-19 and disagreements), Eximbank appointed Luong Thi Cam Tu to the post of president for the seventh term (2020-2025) instead of Yasuhiro Saitoh.

Right after that, the board of directors faced pressure from shareholders who requested an explanation about the STB share transfer at below the minimum price level of VND13,000 per share, which led to loss of revenue for Eximbank.

Eximbank now holds a record in number of changes with the board of directors’ chairman, and the number of cancelations or postponements of shareholders’ meetings in the last 10 years.

One president was only on the ‘hot seat’ for half an hour, while another held it for five days.

The lack of stability and solidarity of the board of directors has put the bank at a disadvantage because it has missed many opportunities for development. Meanwhile, small shareholders have not received dividends for many years.

Manh Ha