The appellate court awarded 4.8 billion dong to Vinasun, Grab complained: “In the future, if any business is not satisfied with a business model, they will also use the court to sue the opponent.”

Tram Ho

On the morning of March 10, a high-level People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City appealed for the case of non-contractual compensation agreement between Anh Duong Vietnam JSC (Vinasun) and Grab (Grab) Co., Ltd.

Tòa phúc thẩm xử bồi thường 4,8 tỷ đồng cho Vinasun, Grab than vãn: Tương lai bất kỳ DN nào không hài lòng với một mô hình kinh doanh, họ cũng sẽ lợi dụng tòa án để kiện đối thủ - Ảnh 1.

Commenting on the causal relationship between Grab’s appearance and Vinasun’s losses, the decline in Vinasun’s revenue caused by Grab, the Court of Appeals declared that Grab had to pay Vinasun VND 4.8 billion.

After the ruling, Grab representative said: ” Today is a sad day for technology and innovation in Vietnam”.

“We are sorry that the Appellate Trial Panel has agreed to uphold the First Instance judgment, despite Grab’s presentation of many solid arguments, and the HCMC People’s Procuracy as well as the People’s Procuracy. High-level officials in Ho Chi Minh City all protested that Grab’s business in Vietnam did not violate the law and did not violate the pilot scheme, and there was no evidence to prove the causal relationship between the damages. (if any) that Vinasun is claiming is caused by Grab’s business. “

Tòa phúc thẩm xử bồi thường 4,8 tỷ đồng cho Vinasun, Grab than vãn: Tương lai bất kỳ DN nào không hài lòng với một mô hình kinh doanh, họ cũng sẽ lợi dụng tòa án để kiện đối thủ - Ảnh 2.

The representative of Grab also stated two grounds for his argument.

First , Grab said there was not enough convincing evidence for the Court of Appeals to determine that it had violated the rules of the transportation business and violated the Pilot Project under Decision 24. This could create money. The rules are not good, leading to more unfair lawsuits and a lack of competition.

In the future, if any business is dissatisfied with the business model of another business, they will also take advantage of the court to sue their rivals, ” Grab said.

With the legalization of technology vehicles in Vietnam from April 1, 2020, we believe that Vinasun does not have any legal basis to hinder the Government’s policy implementation process through the Court.

Grab also affirmed that the authorities have reviewed and concluded that Grab’s business operations comply with the Pilot Project under Decision 24. In fact, the Ministry of Transport and other relevant ministries, with approval. of the Prime Minister, has established a legal framework for connecting service providers such as Grab to continue their business, no longer limited to the 5 provinces participating in the pilot, but will be allowed to operate across the country. National Decree 10 (replacing Decree 86) was issued in January this year.

The adoption of Decree 10 is a recognition for the successful implementation of the pilot project under Decision 24 in 2016, when technology vehicles have developed and become an essential part of people’s daily lives. Vietnam.

With the extension of the implementation of the pilot project and preparation for the implementation of Decree 10 (replacing Decree 86), the Government of Vietnam has recognized the importance of applying science and technology in the transport sector. transportation and realizing our commitment to developing a fair and equitable legal framework for all businesses in the market. “

“This includes creating a level playing field for taxi companies and technology companies to coexist in parallel to meet the travel needs of Vietnamese users even better. In Vietnam, from April 1, 2020, we believe that Vinasun does not have any legal basis to hinder the implementation of Government policies through the Court. “, representative of Grab said.

Grab also affirmed that the decision of the Court of Appeal did NOT affect Grab’s current operation and its expansion plan in Vietnam. Grab is committed to continuing to strictly follow the guidance of the Government, ministries and branches when implementing Decree 10.

Grab’s second argument was that the Appellate Court did not have any basis when it relied on the evaluation report of Cuu Long Appraisal and Inspection JSC to request Grab to compensate VND 4.8 billion for Vinasun when This report does not guarantee objectivity, impartiality and errors.

The first-instance court has seriously committed a violation when it does not require a re-assessment and does not convene Cuu Long Dam Assessment Company to the trial.

There is no basis to conclude that Vinasun’s parking costs are related to Grab.

At the trial today, Grab has proven many errors in the inspection report again. Because the Court of Appeal continues to rely on this evaluation report, the appeal court’s judgment is not available. persuasion , “Grab said.

Specifically, the evidence in the lawsuit shows that Vinasun’s revenue in the taxi field did not decline in 2016 and 2017, Vinasun’s profit declined due to internal factors of Vinasun. completely unrelated to Grab.

In addition, there is no basis to conclude that Vinasun’s parking costs are related to Grab.

Finally, the decrease in market capitalization is due to many factors, not just the market participation of a new business unit.

In 2019, Vinasun’s business has shown signs of prosperity since Q1. Vinasun’s 2019 full-year love report showed that this business reached nearly VND 2,000 billion in revenue, of which transport revenue by taxi reached VND 1,728 billion. , transport contract revenue reached more than 240.5 billion dong.

Other income in 2019 reached more than 92 billion dong, of which income from asset liquidation was nearly 45 billion dong, from taxi advertising was over 40 billion dong. Deducting expenses, Vinasun nearly 109 billion profit after tax, up from 88 billion last year.

“Allowing a case of continuing anticompetitive lawsuits will have a negative impact on technology innovation and pose many challenging business conditions for investors and technologies inside and outside. It seems the court has chosen to continue protecting the traditional business model, rather than embracing science and technology as a way to push traditional businesses to operate more efficiently and creatively. “

“Despite this judgment, we are determined to continue to protect our reputation and brand against unreasonable, untrue and unwarranted allegations made by Vinasun in court. Consistent with this principle. , Grab will continue to carry out the necessary legal procedures to ensure our legal rights and interests to achieve a fair and transparent outcome, “Grab said.

Share the news now

Source : Genk