Title: Far East Bank v. Dang

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present: All the Justices 
 
FAR EAST BANK/VIEN DONG 
NGAN HANG, ET AL. 
 
 
            OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 
v.  Record No. 981335 
April 16, 1999 
 
VINH Q. DANG, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 
Donald M. Haddock, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, Far East Bank and its purported 
shareholders seek to recover a portion of a fund deposited 
with the general receiver of the circuit court.  The 
dispositive issue we consider is whether the appellants have 
established that they are shareholders of the Bank, which was 
allegedly expropriated by the government of Vietnam. 
 
The procedural history of this case is complex and 
involves many facts which are not pertinent to our resolution 
of this appeal.  We will discuss only those facts which are 
essential to the precise issues presented here. 
 
Vinh Q. Dang and Dien Van Phan, shareholders in Donai 
Construction and Industrial Company, t/a Docico Corporation 
(DOCICO), filed an amended bill of complaint requesting that 
the circuit court determine their interests in a fund in the 
sum of $1,002,892.03 held by the Crestar Financial 
Corporation.  The circuit court entered an order of 
publication to provide notice to all persons who may have 
interests in the fund.  Appellants, Far East Bank and its 
alleged shareholders, Hong Thi Nguyen, Vuong Trieu Ly, Tuyen 
Thi Vuong, Minh K. Nguyen, Toan Cao Phan, and Nguyen Khac 
Quyen, filed a notice of claim asserting that Far East Bank 
had made a loan to DOCICO in the amount of $1,301,707, and 
that these purported shareholders were entitled to repayment 
of the loan from the funds held by Crestar Financial 
Corporation on behalf of DOCICO. 
 
The appellees, who are creditors or shareholders of 
DOCICO, filed pleadings and asserted various interests in the 
fund.*  The chancellor ordered that Crestar Financial 
Corporation deposit the fund with the court's general 
receiver, and the chancellor referred the matter to a 
commissioner in chancery who heard the following evidence. 
 
In 1973, DOCICO, which was organized in Saigon, Vietnam, 
executed a construction contract with the United States Agency 
for International Development.  Pursuant to the terms of that 
contract, DOCICO performed highway construction work in 
Vietnam.  In 1975, the Agency for International Development 
suspended work on DOCICO's construction project because of 
                     
* The appellees are:  Vinh Q. Dang, Dien Van Phan, Nguyen 
Ngoc Dung, Nguyen Ngoc Lan, The Estate of Nguyen Van Chung, Ha 
Van Sanh, Nguyen Dang But, Ha Ngoc Long, Ha Ngoc Min, Chuong 
Quoc Lai, The Estate of Man Lai, Nguyen Van The, Tran Van 
Cuong, Lai Nam Huong, The Estate of Phu Than Vo, Thai Bin 
Huynh, Thomas R. Averna, Construction and Industrial 
Development Corporation, Ltd., My Nguyen, and Julien 
Graystone. 
 
2
events occurring in the Vietnam War.  At the time of the 
suspension of work, the Agency for International Development 
owed DOCICO money for work performed.  DOCICO, in turn, owed 
money to its subcontractors. 
 
In 1980, DOCICO's shareholders voted to pursue a claim on 
behalf of DOCICO against the United States government for 
payment for work performed.  In 1987, appellant, Nguyen Khac 
Quyen, who is also a shareholder of DOCICO, filed an 
application for a license with the United States Treasury 
Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control, and sought 
permission to recover on behalf of DOCICO the sums that the 
United States owed DOCICO.  Quyen stated under oath that he 
had personal knowledge of all facts contained in the 
application and that no one other than those persons 
identified in the application had any interest in the fund 
that DOCICO sought to recover from the United States.  Quyen 
specifically did not identify any claim on behalf of Far East 
Bank, a corporation of which he claimed to have been an 
officer and director since the early 1970s.  Additionally, 
Quyen did not list Far East Bank on the application even 
though he testified later that he personally approved the loan 
that Far East Bank purportedly made to DOCICO. 
 
Quyen testified that when he was president or chairman of 
Far East Bank in 1974, representatives of DOCICO requested a 
 
3
loan so that it could perform the construction contract with 
the Agency for International Development.  Far East Bank 
approved the loan, and the Bank executed promissory notes with 
DOCICO.  Quyen believed that the original promissory notes are 
in Saigon in the possession of Far East Bank, which he assumed 
had been "nationalized or . . . expropriated . . . by the 
government of Vietnam." 
 
Quyen also testified that he was president or chairman of 
Far East Bank and that he owned about 30% of the stock in that 
Bank.  He was not asked, and he did not testify, about any 
other information relevant to the Bank's issuance of stock. 
 
 Ha Van Sanh, a shareholder in DOCICO, testified that he 
met with Quyen on behalf of DOCICO in 1974 and requested a 
loan.  Sanh stated that he, along with other DOCICO 
shareholders, paid the loan, or a portion of it, in return for 
permission from the government of Vietnam to leave that 
country.  In 1992, the United States government settled 
DOCICO's claim by paying the sum of $1,002,892.03 in an 
account with the Crestar Financial Corporation in Virginia. 
 
At the conclusion of a two-day hearing, the commissioner 
ruled, among other things, that the purported shareholders of 
Far East Bank failed to present any evidence that they "ever 
held any stock ownership in Far East Bank which was located in 
Saigon, Vietnam."  The chancellor overruled the purported 
 
4
shareholders' objections to the commissioner's report and, 
subsequently, the chancellor entered a decree which determined 
the litigants' interests in the fund. 
 
On appeal, Far East Bank and its purported shareholders 
argue, among other things, that the chancellor erred by 
approving the commissioner's report because they claim that 
they established that they are shareholders in Vietnamese Far 
East Bank.  Responding, the DOCICO shareholders and creditors 
assert that Far East Bank's purported shareholders failed to 
establish that they own any interests in that Bank. 
 
We will apply our well-established standard of review in 
resolving this appeal.  A decree which approves the 
commissioner's report will be affirmed unless plainly wrong or 
without evidence to support it.  Chesapeake Builders, Inc. v. 
Lee, 254 Va. 294, 299, 492 S.E.2d 141, 144 (1997); Firebaugh 
v. Hanback, 247 Va. 519, 525, 443 S.E.2d 134, 137 (1994); Hill 
v. Hill, 227 Va. 569, 576-77, 318 S.E.2d 292, 296-97 (1984).  
Even though the report of a commissioner in chancery does not 
carry the weight of a jury verdict, Code § 8.01-610, the 
report should be sustained by the chancellor if the 
commissioner's findings are supported by the evidence.  This 
rule applies with particular force to factual findings in the 
report which are based upon evidence heard by the 
commissioner, but does not apply to pure conclusions of law 
 
5
contained in the report.  Chesapeake Builders, Inc., 254 Va. 
at 299, 492 S.E.2d at 144; Morris v. United Virginia Bank, 237 
Va. 331, 337-38, 377 S.E.2d 611, 614 (1989); Hill, 227 Va. at 
576-77, 318 S.E.2d at 296-97. 
 
Applying these principles, we hold that the record 
supports the chancellor's decree sustaining the commissioner's 
ruling that the purported shareholders failed to prove that 
they owned any stock interest in Far East Bank located in 
Saigon, Vietnam.  The record is simply devoid of any evidence 
that Vuong Ly, Hong Nguyen, Tuyen Vuong, Minh Nguyen, or Toan 
Phan owned any stock in the Bank.  No witness testified that 
these claimants were shareholders of the Vietnamese bank. 
 
It is true that Quyen testified that he owned 30% of the 
stock of Far East Bank in Vietnam in 1974.  However, the 
commissioner, who saw, heard, and evaluated Quyen's testimony, 
apparently did not believe him.  And, the commissioner was not 
required to accept Quyen's testimony because Quyen's testimony 
about material factual issues was contradicted by other 
witnesses and a sworn statement that he had signed.  See 
Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 862, 870, 55 S.E.2d 24, 29 
(1949); Limbaugh v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 383, 398, 140 S.E. 
133, 137 (1927).  Thus, we cannot conclude, based upon the 
record before us, that the commissioner erred by rejecting 
Quyen's testimony. 
 
6
 
We also observe that appellant Minh Nguyen testified that 
a bank located in California is also known as the Far East 
Bank.  Nguyen stated that this particular bank is "recognized 
by the government in California and is now a corporation or a 
company of the California State."  Nguyen testified that he 
owned 283 shares in a bank, but the commissioner, who observed 
Nguyen and heard his testimony, found that Nguyen did not own 
stock in the Vietnamese Far East Bank, but that he owned stock 
in the California bank. 
 
The undisputed evidence of record reveals that the 
purported shareholders planned to convene a meeting and decide 
what to do with any proceeds they may have acquired as a 
result of this litigation.  Quyen testified that he did not 
even know whether the appellant Far East Bank "still exists."  
Even though Far East Bank is a party in this appeal, the 
record is devoid of any evidence that either the Bank's board 
of directors or its officers authorized anyone to assert a 
claim in this proceeding.  See Code §§ 13.1-673, -693, and -
694.  Thus, the chancellor did not err in rejecting the Bank's 
claim. 
 
In view of our disposition of this appeal, we need not 
consider the litigants' remaining arguments.  Accordingly, we 
will affirm the chancellor's decree, and we will remand this 
 
7
proceeding so that the chancellor may supervise the 
distribution of the fund held by the general receiver. 
Affirmed and remanded. 
 
8