Author: afridi-angell

DIFC Court of Appeal overrules Sandra Holding in part and reaffirms itself as an international commercial court

“When you make a wrong turn you must make two right turns: one to correct the wrong turn and one just for growth.”

 

This ancient, Native American proverb still holds true today – at least, it seems, according to the eagerly-awaited decision in Carmon Reestrutura-Engenharia E Serviços Técnios Especiais, (SU) LDA v Antonio Joao Catete Lopes Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003 (Carmon v Cuenda).

 

The DIFC Court of Appeal in Carmon v Cuenda has overturned, in part, its own decision in Sandra Holding Ltd and others v Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh and others [2023] DIFC CA 003 (Sandra Holding), holding that the Court does have the jurisdiction to make freezing orders in support of foreign court proceedings. This landmark decision, issued by Justices Robert French, Sir Peter Gross and Rene Le Miere, is also the first time that the DIFC Court of Appeal has considered the circumstances under which it may depart from its own previous decisions.

 

Background

 

On 24 July 2023, Afridi & Angell, acting on behalf of the Claimant (an Angolan construction company), sought and obtained from Justice Wayne Martin (as he then was), sitting as the DIFC Court of First Instance, an ex parte freezing order together with an order for specific disclosure in support of proceedings in Hong Kong in which it was alleged that the Defendant had misappropriated in excess of USD 23 million of Carmon’s money.

 

The High Court of Hong Kong had already issued both a proprietary injunction over the funds, and their traceable proceeds, and a worldwide freezing order. A banker’s book order revealed that the Defendant had transferred the funds to other jurisdictions including Switzerland and the UAE.  Justice Martin’s Order accordingly restrained the Defendant’s bank accounts in onshore Dubai to prevent any further dissipation and required the disclosure of balances in those accounts.

 

Following a heavily-contested return date hearing, Justice Martin reserved judgment pending the Defendant’s compliance with his previous order for disclosure and, on the morning of 7 September 2023, ruled that the freezing order should continue – not least because new evidence revealed that the Defendant had, in apparent breach of the Hong Kong High Court orders, dissipated and/or transferred-on most of the funds in the UAE bank accounts.

 

The Wrong Turn: the CA decision in Sandra Holding

 

On the afternoon of 6 September 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Sandra Holding which held that the DIFC Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to make a freezing order in support of the prospective enforcement of a judgment in proceedings pending in a foreign court unless the Court had such jurisdiction established through one of the pathways specified in Article 5(A) of the JAL.

 

The Defendant then, relying on Sandra Holding, applied to set aside Justice Martin’s order for want of jurisdiction.  Justice Martin, accepting that he was bound to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal, discharged his own orders while staying the operation of the discharge (i.e., maintaining the freeze over the Defendant’s accounts) pending the decision of the Court of Appeal. Justice Martin also gave permission to appeal his order on limited grounds. Carmon then sought further permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal as to whether the recent decision in Sandra Holding was wrong in law and should, to that extent, be overruled.

 

The First Right Turn:  Correcting the Law

 

In a legal first for the DIFC Courts, on 4 April 2024, Justice Sir Peter Gross sitting as a single judge of the Court of Appeal, also gave leave to appeal in respect of Carmon’s further grounds, holding that there was “an arguable case that Sandra Holding was wrongly decided” and identifying a number of important policy issues which arose:

 

“(1) The power of the DIFC Courts, established (inter alia) to assist international trade, to grant freezing orders in circumstances where such relief could be crucial to avoid the dissipation of assets.

 

(2) The need to guard against the assertion by the DIFC Courts of an exorbitant jurisdiction.

 

(3) The proper limits of judicial (as distinct from legislative) development of the law by the DIFC Courts, whose jurisdiction is based on statute.”

 

In last week’s landmark judgment, the Court expressly held in summary: [1]

 

“It is the respectful opinion of this Court that the Court in Sandra Holding took a wrong turning in an unduly restrictive view of the powers of this Court which may be deployed in aid of its express jurisdiction ….. it is clear with the benefit of full and further consideration, that the past decision was legally incorrect ….. Further, it can be said to have generated inconvenience in the sense that the absence of the power to issue a freezing order in respect of a prospective foreign judgment may result in the jurisdiction of this Court to recognise the foreign judgment ultimately issued being thwarted. The correct analysis, in our respectful view, is whether the Court had power (and if it be necessary to say so, ancillary jurisdiction) to do so in order to avoid the thwarting of its undisputed express jurisdiction to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment. We are clear that the answer is Yes. We would add that considerations of policy for this Court are overwhelmingly in favour of granting the injunction. So too, are all discretionary considerations. The appeal should be allowed.” [2]

 

The Second Right Turn:  For Growth – the DIFC as an international court

 

The significance of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Carmon v Cuenda cannot be overstated.

 

First, it lays a strong foundation for the continued economic growth of the region and the promotion of the Emirate as an international centre for dispute resolution and settlement: [3]

 

“The ability of a potential judgment debtor in a commercial dispute to make a pre-emptive strike against enforcement of any judgment against it would be inimical to the rule of law in trade and commerce, domestically and transnationally. The DIFC Courts are part of a growing network of international commercial courts in a number of jurisdictions around the world. Where their jurisdiction and powers are amenable to constructions supporting the rule of law in transnational trade and commerce, such constructions should be preferred. In our opinion, Article 24 of the Court Law properly construed confers jurisdiction to entertain proceedings by way of an application for such relief as may be necessary to prevent its pre-emption by a dissipation of the assets of a prospective judgment debtor in proceedings in a foreign court whose judgment can be recognised and enforced in the DIFC Courts…..”

 

Second, the Court of Appeal provided carefully-considered guidance as to how in the future the question of whether the DIFC Court Rules confer jurisdiction on the DIFC courts in a particular case should be resolved.  Adopting what it termed an “expansive” approach “informed by public policy”, the Court ruled that “regard must be had to the function and purpose of the DIFC Courts, which are statutory courts integral to the operation of the DIFC as a Financial Free Zone”.

 

Third, an important conceptual distinction was made between the existence of a jurisdiction and the powers that may be exercised in aid of it.  Critically, it was said that jurisdiction may be implied from the grant of a power. [4]

 

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held in Carmon v Cuenda that the grant of a jurisdiction to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment must encompass, if only by implication, the grant of power necessary to prevent that jurisdiction from being thwarted. The DIFC Court has express jurisdiction to recognise and enforce foreign judgments, and that jurisdiction would be thwarted if a defendant to a foreign proceeding which may yield such a judgment could dissipate its assets, whether within the DIFC or otherwise.

 

Finally, having been asked for the first time to overrule one of its own previous decisions, the Court of Appeal concluded that if one of its earlier decisions embodied an error of law that impeded the effective administration of justice then it would review the case having regard to the four considerations set out by the High Court of Australia in John v Federal Commissioner of Taxation[5], namely:

 

  • whether or not the precedent decision rested upon a principle carefully worked out in a significant succession of cases;

 

  • whether there were differences in the reasoning that led to the precedent decision;

 

  • whether a precedent decision had achieved no useful result but considerable inconvenience; and

 

  • whether or not a precedent decision had been independently acted on in a manner which militated against reconsideration.

 

The decision is also growing evidence of the progress of the DIFC Courts’ longer term mission to develop its own distinctive body of jurisprudence by broadening the base beyond its traditional roots in English common law. ■

 

Afridi & Angell successfully represented Carmon throughout the proceedings and instructed Zoe O’Sullivan KC of Serle Court Chambers for the set aside application and the appeal.

 

–

[1] Extracted from [204] and [205]

[2] The Carmon Court also found that the case for a WFO was not established on the merits in Sandra Holding Ltd and the result would therefore likely have been the same even had the court found there to be jurisdiction and power to make the order sought in that case

[3] Extracted from [154] – [155]

[4] See [31], [38] and [58].

[5] (1989) 166 CLR 417

Mergers & Acquisitions (UAE Chapter), Lexology In-Depth

This multi-jurisdictional reference guide features a UAE chapter, authored by Danielle Lobo (partner), Abdus Samad (partner) and Alexander Grant (associate), and provides a practical overview of global M&A activity and the legal and regulatory frameworks governing M&A transactions in major jurisdictions worldwide. With a focus on recent developments and trends, it examines key issues, including the relevant competition, tax, and employment law considerations; financing; due diligence; and much more.

Litigation and Enforcement in the United Arab Emirates

A Q&A guide to dispute resolution law in the United Arab Emirates.

 

The country-specific Q&A gives a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning dispute resolution in this jurisdiction, including court procedures; fees and funding; interim remedies (including attachment orders); disclosure; expert evidence; appeals; class actions; enforcement; cross-border issues; the use of ADR; and any reform proposals.

The Long-Awaited Implementing Regulations for the Bankruptcy Law

Federal Decree-Law No. 51/2023 Promulgating the Financial Reorganisation and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) introduced a new bankruptcy regime in the UAE, but left a number of key issues to be addressed under later implementing regulations. These regulations have now been issued under Cabinet Decision No. 94/2024 on the Implementing Regulation of the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Law (the Implementing Regulations). The Implementing Regulations supplement the Bankruptcy Law and provide further guidance and clarity on several issues as highlighted below.

 

Regulatory Authorities

 

The UAE Central Bank (UAE CB) and the Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA) have been identified as “Supervisory Entities” that will be responsible for implementing the Bankruptcy Law for entities that are subject to their supervision (including banks, financial services providers and insurance companies). Given the key role that these regulated entities (particularly banks and insurance companies) play in the broader economy, it is appropriate that they be treated as a separate category under the Bankruptcy Law and that the Supervisory Entities oversee their bankruptcy proceedings, as they will have the most detailed information regarding their operations and financial condition.

 

Bankruptcy and Restructuring Register

 

The Implementing Regulations provide details on the information that will be recorded in the bankruptcy register (as established under the Bankruptcy Law) maintained by the Bankruptcy Unit to record applications submitted and actions taken by the Bankruptcy Court, as well as information about the bankruptcy proceedings, parties and trustees/controllers (the Register). To access information from the Register, an interested party must submit an application to the Bankruptcy Unit, specifying the information requested and the reasons for the application. The application will be subject to the approval of the Minister of Justice (or their representative).

 

Whilst the ability to access information regarding a bankruptcy application/case provides greater clarity and transparency on the bankruptcy exercise, the fact that such access is limited to interested parties who can demonstrate legitimate reasons for requesting the information (both of which are subject to the Bankruptcy Unit and Minister of Justice’s interpretation and discretion), suggests that such access to the information in the Register will be limited to parties with a direct interest in the bankruptcy action.

 

Revised Debt Thresholds

 

Under Federal Decree-Law No. 9/2016 (the Old Law), which was repealed by the Bankruptcy Law:

 

  • a debtor was eligible to file for bankruptcy if the debtor is unable to make payment of debts due to financial difficulty of insolvency for a period of 30 days from the due date; and

 

  • a creditor was eligible to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against a debtor if a debt of at least AED 100,000 was outstanding.

 

However, the Implementing Regulations have increased the required debt thresholds that the debtor has ceased or will be unable to pay under the Bankruptcy Law, as follows:

 

  • a creditor may initiate bankruptcy proceedings if the value of debts owed by the debtor is at least AED 1 million (or AED 10 million if the debtor is regulated by the UAE CB or SCA);

 

  • a debtor may file for bankruptcy if the value of the debts is at least (a) AED 300,000, if the debtor is a natural person; (b) AED 500,000, if the debtor is a legal entity and (c) AED 5 million, if the debtor is a regulated entity; and

 

  • a secured creditor/mortgagee may initiate restructuring or bankruptcy proceedings if (a) in case of one creditor, the aggregate value of the securities is AED 1 million less than the debts owed; (b) in case of a group of creditors, the aggregate value of the securities is AED 5 million less than the debts owed; and (c) in case of a regulated entity, the aggregate value of the securities is AED 10 million the debts owed.

 

The increase in the value thresholds for initiating proceedings under the Bankruptcy Law may, in part, have been designed to discourage frivolous actions. However, these changes may also have unintended consequences, in terms of limiting both debtors’ and creditors’ ability to access an orderly winding-up of a bankrupt company, in certain circumstances. For example, under the Old Law, if a company was bankrupt and had no prospect of rescuing its business, it could apply for a debtor led bankruptcy. However, under the Implementing Regulations, this is now only possible if the company has debts of over AED 500,000 (or AED 5 million if the debtor is a regulated entity). Consequently, a company with debts of less than AED 500,000 would not be able to initiate an orderly bankruptcy. Similarly, the threshold for a creditor led bankruptcy of a debtor company has increased tenfold under the Bankruptcy Law.

 

Bank guarantee required for commencing proceedings

 

The Implementing Regulations have also revised the amount of money or bank guarantee that an applicant must submit to the Bankruptcy Court treasury in order to cover the costs associated with the initial application review. Under the Old Law, the amount payable by the creditor, either as money or a bank guarantee, was capped at AED 20,000. However, the amount required for debtor-led proceedings, whether in cash or as a bank guarantee, was not specified. The Implementing Regulations now require a debtor or creditor applicant (other than the regulatory authorities) to provide a payment or the bank guarantee representing 5 percent of the debtor’s total debts owed to the creditor or 5 percent of the debtor’s total debts or assets as of the date of the application.

 

As with the increased thresholds for initiating bankruptcy proceedings discussed above, the changes to the money or bank guarantees (which are now uncapped) may act as a barrier, particularly for small creditors, to accessing proceedings under the Bankruptcy Law. Creditors may find it difficult to deposit the required money or bank guarantee, particularly if their financial position has also deteriorated due to the payment defaults of the debtor company.

 

Small claims procedures

 

Although the Bankruptcy Law introduced simplified procedures for “small debtors”, it did not define what constitutes a “small debtor”. The Implementing Regulations identify small debtors as those whose assets value does not exceed (i) AED 1 million, in the case of a natural person, and (ii) AED 2 million, in the case of a legal entity. In such circumstances, the Bankruptcy Court may, on its own motion or pursuant to an application filed by the debtor, the trustee or a creditor, order that preventive settlement, restructuring or bankruptcy proceedings be initiated in accordance with the procedures set out in the Bankruptcy Law.

 

Approval for actions undertaken by the debtor

 

The Bankruptcy Law provided that, following the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor would require the approval of the trustee in order to undertake certain actions relating to the business and operations of the company under restructuring proceedings. The Implementing Regulations identify these actions as (i) the provision or renewal of guarantees, (ii) paying liquid debts or pre-paying debts, (iii) forming a subsidiary or purchasing shares in another company, (iv) transferring ownership of its property, business, or assets outside the ordinary course of business, and (v) waiving legal claims or enter into financial settlements.

 

These restrictions ensure that the debtor’s actions do not undermine the restructuring process or negatively impact creditors’ interests during the restructuring proceedings.

 

Auction of the debtor’s assets

 

The Implementing Regulations also introduces certain pricing, conditions and procedures relating to the sale of assets of a company in bankruptcy. Prior to the sale of a debtor’s assets by way of an action, the Bankruptcy Court must approve the liquidation and distribution plan. The base price of the assets shall be established by the trustee in accordance with the appraisal conducted by a court-appointed valuation expert. This however does not apply to the sale of securities issued by government bodies, public institutions or joint-stock companies and other financial instruments accepted by the SCA, which shall follow separate market procedures under the supervision and control of the SCA.

 

Details of the auction must be advertised at least five business days in advance, in both Arabic and English newspapers, as well as on the Bankruptcy Court’s website. Bids will be submitted either in sealed envelopes or electronically, in accordance with the conditions determined by the trustee and the Bankruptcy Court’s approval. If the highest bidder fails to deposit the required payment within five days, the next highest bidder is given the opportunity, and the process repeats if necessary.

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst the Implementing Regulations provide valuable clarity and input on key provisions of the Bankruptcy Law, they also further demonstrate that the debtor friendly bankruptcy regime adopted in the UAE (in contrast to the creditor led regimes in most Western jurisdictions). It also reinforces the UAE’s preference for restructuring and corporate recovery, and prescribing bankruptcy only in cases where a corporate rescue is impossible or impractical. This is a welcomed approach.

 

It remains to be seen exactly how the Bankruptcy Law and Implementing Regulations will be adopted and applied in practice by the Bankruptcy Court, in particular whether the increased value thresholds for initiating proceedings and the uncapped advance money and bank guarantees identified under the Implementing Regulations will undermine the ability to effectively access proceedings under the Bankruptcy Law.

 

We will continue to monitor developments in the UAE bankruptcy regime. ■

Dubai’s Resilient Property Market in the face of Climate Change

Climate change is affecting the world, and its impact is notably most seen in the rise in sea levels and flooding from major weather systems, as evident in the recent events in Florida in the US. These changes directly threaten oceanfront communities and the local real estate market.

 

Oceanfront properties, once considered prime real estate, are now facing significant devaluation globally due to the encroaching threat of rising waters. However, interestingly, while this trend is evident in many parts of the world, Dubai presents an anomaly where oceanfront property prices continue to defy the global trend, with property prices showing resilience and, in some places, even increasing.

 

The Global Scenario: Rising Water Levels and Falling Property Prices

 

Climate change has accelerated the melting of polar ice caps, leading to rising sea levels. According to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global sea levels have risen by about 20 centimetres since 1880, with the rate of increase doubling over the last two decades. This rise poses a significant threat to oceanfront communities, leading to frequent flooding, erosion, and the potential eventual submersion of low-lying areas.

 

In US states such as Florida, a region notorious for its vulnerability to rising seas, property prices in certain oceanfront areas have dropped by as much as 20% since 2013. Additionally, the demand for houses with higher elevation has risen. Similarly, the same trend has occurred in other states, such as New York, Massachusetts, and California where oceanfront property prices are losing significant value. In Nantucket, Massachusetts, a beachside residence that should have sold for $2 million sold instead for a fraction of the price at $600,000. Notably, the drop in prices reflects the evident risk not just to the properties but also to life. The drop in property values has occurred over the last 10 years with the increase in flooding, along with the increase in hurricanes and their power.

 

However, although the UAE’s long coastline increases its vulnerability to rising sea levels and with the UAE Ministry of Climate Change and Environment estimating sea level rises in the Gulf by as much as 50 centimetres by 2050, the UAE continues to see a rise in oceanfront property values, unlike other areas of the world.

 

Dubai: The Exception

 

In contrast to the global trend, Dubai’s oceanfront property market continues to thrive. The city, known for its ambitious real estate projects, has managed to maintain, and even increase, the value of its oceanfront properties.

 

Dubai has made significant investments in infrastructure to address the risks of rising sea levels most notably the use of innovative architectural design, preventative measures and future planning:

 

i.) Palm Jumeirah and Palm Jebel Ali are artificial islands which were designed using advanced engineering techniques to guard against flooding and erosion.

 

ii.) Plantation of Mangroves; Dubai is already looking to bolster its sea lines and reduce the impact of climate change in the reintroduction and addition of mangroves. Success has already been seen in Abu Dhabi on this front.

 

iii.) Responsible and regenerative development; new up and coming developments are dealing with environmental and climate issues at hand, most notably the rise of and introduction of greener living spaces, and forest landscaping.

 

Further, in order to combat the environmental challenges posed by global warming, the Government of Dubai has implemented certain programmes and zoning laws which include the Green Building Regulations & Specifications, Coastal Zone Management Framework, and the Dubai Urban 2040 Master Plan. In Dubai, the government and real estate developers have invested in sand banking i.e., raising the natural elevation of the ground level from the sea level.

 

Dubai’s ability to use technology and advances in engineering alongside its driven and notable advanced plans to tackle and deal with climate change issues such as erosion and flooding in advance, arguably, is what drives investors and realtors’ confidence in the oceanfront real estate market. Notably, Palm Jumeirah has seen an increase of 54% in the mean property price recently.

 

But what are the legal considerations and implications that investors should be aware of?

 

Disclosure: ahead of any purchase an Investor should enquire and request a full disclosure of the property’s history, including any flooding history.

 

Insurance and Liability: investors should be aware of the potential risk of increased insurance premiums with the potential that an oceanfront property becomes uninsurable.

 

Zoning and Development Laws: although other global cities are having to review and implement stricter zoning laws, Dubai’s rapid development is factoring in the laws and codes implemented by the government including, Dubai Municipality’s Green Building Regulations and Specifications and Dubai 2040 Urban Master Plan.

 

Conclusion

 

Going forward, the risks posed by rising sea levels are a threat to oceanfront real estate. Innovative real estate development solutions will need to be utilised and invested in by developers and governments. Further, alternative approaches to development and areas of development shall need to be considered, including developing inland water bodies such as lakes or lagoons that replicate the aesthetics and lifestyle of oceanfront living without the rising sea level risks. Dubai has already developed master communities with inland lakes and lagoons, and continues to be at the forefront of this design with new lakes and lagoons developments underway. These inland real estate developments combine luxury living with a practical response to the growing threat of coastal erosion and flooding.

 

Climate change is a global issue, and rising sea levels do not respect national borders. Therefore, there needs to be a cohesive and robust international response to dealing with the increasing challenges of rising sea levels.  ■

Changes to the UAE economic substance reporting regime

The UAE Federal Government has issued Cabinet Decision 98 of 2024 (2024 Cabinet Decision) and has, as a result, substantially revised the application of the UAE economic substance reporting requirements. The present economic substance requirements were first introduced through Cabinet Decision 57 of 2020 (the 2020 Cabinet Decision). The 2024 Cabinet Decision amends these requirements and provides that the economic substance requirements originally specified under the 2020 Cabinet Decision shall apply only to financial years starting from 1 January 2019 and ending on or prior to 31 December 2022.

 

The 2024 Cabinet Decision further stipulates that: (a) any administrative fines imposed on a “licensee” or an “exempt licensee” in accordance with the 2020 Cabinet Decision for a financial year ending after 31 December 2022 shall be extinguished; and (b) in the event that any administrative fines have already been collected in respect of any financial year ending after 31 December 2022, these fines shall be returned and any ongoing enforcement proceedings withdrawn. ■

Lending and taking security in the United Arab Emirates: Overview

This Q&A gives a high level overview of the lending market, forms of security over assets, special purpose vehicles in secured lending, quasi-security, guarantees, and loan agreements.

 

It covers creation and registration requirements for security interests; problem assets over which security is difficult to grant; risk areas for lenders; structuring the priority of debt; debt trading and transfer mechanisms; agent and trust concepts; enforcement of security interests and borrower insolvency; cross-border issues on loans; taxes; and proposals for reform.