Vincom Retail Joint Stock Company (VCR) has filed a lawsuit against the M.V.P Group, owner of Platinum Cineplex, after the Indonesian entertainment conglomerate claimed that the closure of its cinemas at three Vincom trading centres early March is illegal.— Photo techz.vn

HÀ NỘI — Vincom Retail Joint Stock Company (VCR) has filed a lawsuit against the M.V.P Group, owner of Platinum Cineplex, after the Indonesian entertainment conglomerate claimed that the closure of its cinemas at three Vincom trading centres early March is illegal.

Earlier, on March 8, the M.V.P Group held a press conference to address issued related to the closure of Platinum Cineplex, the biggest cinema operator by screen in Hà Nội, at three Vincom malls.

The three cinemas include Platinum Royal City in Thanh Xuân District, Platinum Times City in Hai Bà Trưng District and Platinum Long Biên in Gia Lâm District.

At the press conference, an M.V.P representative said that VCR’s unilateral termination of the contract signed with M.V.P Group ahead of expiration date was illegal, as the group had not breached the contract.

Platinum has no outstanding debts at any of the three Vincom malls, the representative said, dismissing claims made by Vincom Retail in local media.

He said that the information supplied by VCR had serious impact on the group’s prestige.

In response to claims by the M.V.P Group, VCR general director Trần Mai Hoa said VCR had many times asked the M.V.P to voluntarily move its assets away from VCR premises as regulated in contract clause of termination. However, M.V.P has deliberately delayed moving.

Specically, on October 15, 2016, M.V.P agreed to move their assets but later asked for extension to February 4, 2017. On December 19, 2016, the group once again asked for an extension of 10 to 12 months. On December 20, 2016, it requested an extension and permission to operate over the Tết (Lunar New Year) holiday.

VCR agreed to an extension to February 24, but M.V.P has still not moved its assets. Therefore, on March 1, VCR was forced to seal the premises, in accordance with the contract. It notified M.V.P of its plans, and even agreed for M.V.P to send a representative to the premises to check its assets.

“Sealing the premises is a legal measure to recover our premises appropriated by the M.V.P when the leasing contract ended,” Hoa said. It was done and witnessed by M.V.P managers and representatives from authorities at each location.

Related to the outstanding debts, Hoa said that VCR and M.V.P had a working session to calculate the outstanding debts, and on October 14, 2016, head of the M.V.P financial department confirmed the figure.

The contract was terminated in accordance with the rights of the two parties negotiated and clearly specified in the contract, the VCR representative said.

She noted that the case is a disagreement between the two independent business partners and should therefore be resolved on the basis of law and the trade and civil agreement between the parties. — VNS