North Carolina Sues Vietnamese EV Maker After Ongoing Delays

The state paid nearly half a billion dollars to help prepare the site and little has happened since.

Last Thursday, North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson said, "VinFast agreed to build a factory and create jobs for North Carolinians — it didn't do either."

The statement accompanied a lawsuit against the EV maker for promises made, but not kept.

Jackson filed the lawsuit against VinFast on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Commerce, alleging that the company breached agreements to develop an EV and battery manufacturing facility in Chatham County. Now, the state is trying to reclaim the property so it can find a new partner.

About four years ago, the state's Economic Investment Committee awarded a Job Development Investment Grant to VinFast Manufacturing US, LLC. The company promised to create 7,500 jobs and invest more than $3 billion in an EV manufacturing facility. To help make it happen, the North Carolina General Assembly earmarked $450 million to prepare the site and improve transportation, as well as water and sewer infrastructure in the area.

According to the state, VinFast is on the hook to repay taxpayers, and the state can claw back the land because certain benchmarks were not met. For example, VinFast was required to meet construction benchmarks, but failed to start "vertical construction of buildings and structures" by January 1, 2024, which caused cascading delays. The company was also supposed to have a facility operational by July 2026 and create some 1,750 jobs by the end of 2026.

VinFast cleared and graded the site in 2023, with costs reimbursed by the state. But since then, according to the state, VinFast has failed to meet key obligations and performance requirements tied to the project. The company has said publicly that it does not expect the facility to be operational until at least 2028.

The Department of Justice notified VinFast in January that it had defaulted on its agreement and that the state intended to reacquire the site. VinFast has argued that it had met its construction deadlines and would have a facility opened on a delayed timeline.

VinFast did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

More in Operations