Author: afridi-angell

Potential criminal liability for arbitrators and experts

Article 257 of the UAE Penal Code (Federal Law No. 3 of 1987) was recently amended by Federal Law No. 7 of 2016 to introduce the concept of criminal liability for arbitrators, experts, and translators who issue decisions and opinions ‘contrary to the duties of impartiality and honesty’. Article 257 as amended provides (in translation) as follows:

 

“Whoever issues a decision, makes an opinion, files a report, presents a case or asserts a fact in favour of or against someone, contrary to the required duties of impartiality and honesty, in their capacity as arbitrators, experts, interpreters (translators) or fact finders appointed by the administrative or judicial authority or nominated by the parties shall be punished by temporary imprisonment. The above said categories shall be prohibited from taking up any new assignments and shall be subject to the provisions of Article (255) hereof.”

 

Article 255, referred to in Article 257, provides for reduced sentences in certain circumstances. An unofficial translation is set out below:

 

“Shall be exempted from penalty:

 

  • The witness who, if he tells the truth, shall be subject to a severe prejudice in his freedom, honour or shall expose to such severe prejudice his spouse, even if divorced, one of his ascendants, descendants, brothers, sisters or in-laws of the same degrees.

 

  • The witness who reveals before the court his name, surname and nickname and who had not to be heard as a witness or if he has to be told that he has the right, if he wishes, to abstain from testifying.

 

  • In the two above instances, if such perjury exposes another person to legal prosecution or to a judgment, the author shall be sentenced to detention for a minimum term of six months”.

 

Article 255 refers to witnesses and their testimony, and therefore appears more likely to be relevant to expert witnesses, and not arbitrators.

 

Article 257 prescribes a punishment of temporary imprisonment. Pursuant to Article 68 of the Penal Code, temporary imprisonment constitutes imprisonment of between 3 and 15 years.

 

The amendment became effective on 29 October 2016.

 

Prior to its amendment, Article 257 was confined to the criminal liability of experts appointed by the courts. Subsequent to the amendment, Article 257 has been expanded to apply to arbitrators and experts who are appointed by an administrative or judicial authority, or nominated by the parties. Ostensibly therefore, arbitrators and experts appointed in Dubai under institutional or ad hoc rules will be subject to Article 257.

 

It is yet to be seen how Article 257 will be interpreted and applied in practice. It would conceivably be a difficult task to establish that an arbitrator or an expert has failed to act in an honest and impartial manner. However, the prospect looms where parties dissatisfied with the outcome of an arbitration will pursue complaints under Article 257, and this prospect is one that potential arbitrators will now have to take into account when accepting appointments. ■

The UAE Competition Law clarified

In an earlier inBrief dated 9 December 2014 we wrote about Federal Law No. 4/2012 on the regulation of competition (the “Competition Law”), which introduced the means by which the United Arab Emirates could regulate anti-competitive practices. The Competition Law comprises three key elements: a restriction on anti-competitive agreements, restrictions as to the behaviours of entities holding dominant market positions, and a requirement that mergers between entities with a sufficiently large combined market share obtain clearance in advance from the Ministry of Economy (the “Ministry”).

 

Although the Competition Law took effect on 23 February 2013, it has had minimal impact as it provided insufficient detail to enable compliance or enforcement.In particular, the Competition Law failed to establish the market share thresholds at which its restrictions become applicable, and to define the small and medium establishments to which it does not apply.

 

This year, two Cabinet Decisions have been issued, which provide much needed guidance on these outstanding aspects: Cabinet Decision No. 13/2016 (the “Ratios Decision”) in respect of market share thresholds and Cabinet Decision No. 22/2016 (the “SME Decision”) in respect of small and medium establishments. The uncertainty that remains at this stage relates to how the Competition Law will be applied and enforced by the Ministry as a matter of practice.

 

In this inBrief we highlight the main functions of the Competition Law and how the Ratios Decision and SME Decision have added clarity.

 

The Cartel Restriction

 

The Competition Law prohibits agreements between entities whose subject or aim is violating, reducing or preventing competition, specifically including price-fixing, market-sharing and bid-collusion agreements, among others. Price-fixing and market-sharing, considered the most egregious of all anti-competitive behaviours by many jurisdictions, are always prohibited, but other restrictive practices may be acceptable if they are ‘weak agreements’, meaning that they are entered into by parties with a combined market share below a certain threshold. The Ratios Decision provides that this threshold, below which such agreements do not raise concerns, is set at 10% of the concerned market.

 

The Dominant Position Restriction

 

Although the Competition Law prohibits entities holding a dominant position from taking certain actions, such as imposing resale prices on retailers, price discrimination or artificially cutting prices to force competitors out of the market, it does not specify which entities are regarded as dominant. The Ratios Decision confirms that an entity is considered dominant when its share of the concerned market exceeds 40%.

 

Exemptions

 

All is not lost for entities which, although they exceed the relevant thresholds, wish to enter into restrictive agreements or carry out prohibited activities. An application may be made to the Ministry for exemption from the cartel or dominant position restriction, requiring submission of an application with supporting documents and an explanation as to why exemption is required, among others. It is as yet unclear how generous the Ministry will be, and for what reasons, in granting such exemptions.

 

Merger Clearance

 

Finally, the Competition Law provides that clearance from the Ministry is required in advance of any merger, acquisition or other consolidation of two or more entities, such as would create an entity with a market share above a certain threshold, and which may affect competition in that market. Although the Competition Law provides that clearance is “particularly” required when a dominant position is being created, it states that merger control does not apply solely in such circumstances. The Ratios Decision set the threshold at 40% of the concerned market, the same level at which a dominant position is stated to exist.

 

Concerned Market

 

In each case – cartels, monopolies and mergers – the Ratios Decision sets the relevant threshold as a percentage of the ‘concerned market’. This is defined broadly to comprise markets in which commodities or services are replaceable or may be substituted to meet specific needs, according to price, properties and use.

 

Whilst it is difficult to define the relevant market in legislation and, oftentimes, markets are only identifiable on a case-by-case basis, the effect of the Ratios Decision is to prevent entities from easily identifying themselves as restricted by the Competition Law – for example, would the relevant market be ‘luxury cars’ or ‘Lamborghinis’? It would be helpful for the Ministry of Economy to issue guidance as to how widely or narrowly it intends to apply the definition of ‘concerned market’ in practice. The practice in the UAE will undoubtedly be driven by how pro-actively the Ministry chooses to enforce the Competition Law, which remains an open issue.

 

Small and Medium Establishments

 

In addition to the thresholds provided in respect of the individual restrictions, the Competition Law in its entirety is stated not to apply to ‘small and medium establishments’. The SME Decision defines what such term means, such definition varying depending on whether the relevant entity operates in the trade, industry or services sector. Unlike the definition of concerned market, small and medium establishments are identifiable by turnover and number of employees, thus providing comfort to such entities that they are excluded.

 

Implications

 

The Ratios and SME Decisions have provided welcome clarity as to the application of the Competition Law. The Ministry has sufficient guidance to begin actively enforcing. Companies entering into transactions that are arguably within the specified thresholds should seriously consider the Competition Law and whether they need to file for merger clearance or an exemption. With significant consequences for breach – criminal sanctions and fines up to AED 5 million, or 5% of the relevant entity’s turnover – it will be important to keep a close eye on any enforcement actions taken by the Ministry that may give a signal to the market. ■

Proposed insurance authority decision concerning marketing of insurance policies by banks

Recently, the Emirates Insurance Authority (the “Insurance Authority”) proposed a regulation in draft form concerning marketing of insurance policies by banks (the “Draft Regulation”). It is intended to regulate local insurance companies that market insurance policies through banks in the UAE. Once this Draft Regulation comes into force, banks will, in addition to the approval of the UAE Central Bank, require the approval of the Insurance Authority to market insurance policies.

 

Scope of the Draft Regulation

 

The Draft Regulation applies to insurance companies and banks that operate in the United Arab Emirates. It does not apply to insurance companies and banks in free zones.

 

Approval of the Insurance Authority

 

To obtain approval from the Insurance Authority to market insurance policies through a bank (the “Approval”), an insurance company must submit an application to the Insurance Authority. Within twenty (20) working days, the Insurance Authority will either approve or reject the application. An Approval shall be valid through December 31 of each year and must be renewed annually.

 

To cancel an Approval, an insurance company must terminate the agreement between the bank and the insurance company and notify the Insurance Authority of such termination. The Insurance Authority will then cancel the Approval. The Draft Regulation also permits an insurance company to temporarily suspend the Approval, thereby temporarily stopping the bank from marketing insurance products.

 

Restrictions under the Draft Regulation

 

The Draft Regulation imposes certain restrictions on banks and insurance companies:

 

  • A bank cannot act as an insurance agent, broker, consultant or other insurance-related professional of an insurance company.

 

  • A bank can only market certain types of insurance products.

 

  • A bank must have a designated officer to market insurance policies who (i) must receive ongoing training in marketing insurance policies; and (ii) must have successfully attended three training courses on insurance.

 

  • An insurance company must have a branch in the emirate in which the bank is marketing insurance products.

 

  • A bank can only market insurance products to its customers (defined as those that have accounts with or credit cards issued by the bank).

 

  • The agreement between the bank and the insurance company must state the rights and obligations of both parties, the bank’s commission, the types and classes of insurance products that will be marketed, rules to protect consumers’ rights in the event the agreement is terminated, a mechanism for training designated officer(s), and a requirement to comply with laws on anti-money laundering.

 

  • An insurance company must notify the Insurance Authority of any changes or amendments to the agreement and of any violations of the law by the bank.

 

  • Banks must maintain all documents and information related to marketing insurance products for a period of five (5) years.

 

Bank’s Obligation Towards its Customers

 

The Draft Regulation sets out rules on how the bank should market insurance products to its customers. The bank must ensure that customers are aware of the terms of, and the risks under, an insurance policy.

 

A bank must not condition the provision of banking services to the purchase of insurance and must disclose the fact that it will earn a commission on the sale of insurance.

 

Non-Compliance and Penalties

 

To enforce the draft Regulation, the Insurance Authority can:

 

  • issue a warning to an insurance company to stop violations;

 

  • suspend the Approval; or

 

  • cancel the Approval.

 

Banks that Currently Market Insurance Policies

 

Banks that currently market insurance policies must ensure that the relevant insurance companies obtain Approval from the Insurance Authority within a period of six (6) months from the effective date of the Regulation. ■

Ministerial decision No. (272) of 2016

Federal Law No.2 of 2015 on Commercial Companies (the “New Law”) came into force on 1 July 2015, replacing Federal Law No.8 of 1984. The New Law, similar to its predecessor, contains sections relating to various forms of companies, including public and private joint stock companies (“PJSCs”) and limited liability companies (“LLCs”).

 

While the New Law is divided into sections which expressly apply to a particular type of company, Article 104 of the New Law relates specifically to LLCs and states that “the provisions concerning Joint Stock Companies shall apply to Limited Liability Companies”.

 

The recently enacted Ministerial Decision No. (272) of 2016 (the “Decision”) addresses the scope of Article 104 by stating which articles relating to PSJCs apply to LLCs.

 

Article 3 of the Decision sets forth the articles of the New Law relating to PJSCs which also apply to LLCs. The articles listed are:

 

  • Article 162 – This article states, inter alia, that members of the board shall be liable to the PJSC, its shareholders and third parties for acts of fraud, violations of law or the PJSC’s articles or for errors in management. As applied to an LLC, this would mean that the manager or manager(s) of an LLC would also be so liable to the LLC and its partners for fraud, violations of law, breach of the articles and mismanagement.

 

  • Article 163 – This article states that a PJSC will be bound by acts of a director vis-à-vis a third party, even if it is later found that the director was not properly elected or appointed. Again, with respect to LLCs this would apply to acts of its manager(s).

 

  • Article 167 – This article relates to a waiver by the general assembly of a PJSC of the liability of its directors. A general waiver will not prevent a claim against the directors. However if the act giving rise to the claim was presented to and approved by the general assembly, the claim shall be discharged after one year. Again, with respect to LLCs this would apply to acts of its manager(s).

 

  • Articles 174, 175 and 176 – These articles state, respectively, that shareholders holding 20% of the shares of a PJSC, the PJSC’s auditor, or the Securities and Commodities Authority (the “SCA”), may require the PJSC’s board to convene a meeting of the general assembly. It also stipulates deadlines within which to do so. Applied to LLCs, this would mean that partners owning at least 20% of the capital of the LLC, the LLC’s auditor, or the Economic Department of the relevant Emirate, may require the manager(s) to convene a meeting of the general assembly.

 

  • Article 191 – This article stipulates that shareholders holding at least a 5% shareholding in a PJSC may apply to the SCA to have decisions of the general assembly annulled if such decision is prejudicial to a certain class of shareholders or are of particular benefit to the directors of the PJSC. Article 191 also states that the decision of the SCA may be appealed to a court of law. Thus partners of an LLC that hold at least 5% of the LLC’s capital may make a similar application to the relevant Economic Department for a decision to annul a resolution of the general assembly.

 

  • Article 192 – Section 1 of this article states that in the event a PJSC’s general assembly fails to elect a board in two successive meetings, the SCA’s Chairman may appoint a temporary board for not more than one financial year. After such period the general assembly will be asked once again to elect a board, failing which the SCA’s Chairman will decide a course of action which may include dissolving the PJSC. Section 2 states that if the general assembly fails to appoint an auditor, the SCA may do so on its behalf for a period of one year. Applied to an LLC, Section 1 of Article 192 would mean that if the partners fail to appoint a manager after two successive meetings, the relevant Economic Department may do so. Section 2 would mean that if the partners cannot decide on an auditor, the Economic Department may do so.

 

  • Chapter 7 (Dealing with Auditors) – Provisions relating to the requirement for appointment of an auditor (though for no longer than three consecutive years) (Article 243); requirement for the auditor to issue a report (Article 245); confidentiality of the report (Article 247); prohibition on the auditor from trading in the company’s securities (Article 248); requirement that the auditor report violations of law it may uncover (Article 249); required contents of the auditor’s report (Article 250); dismissal of an auditor (Article 251); resignation of an auditor (Article 252); liability of an auditor and limitation periods for such liability (Article 253 and 254). With the respective replacement of directors for managers and the SCA with the Economic Department, the above provisions apply virtually verbatim to LLCs.

 

  • Article 236 – This article requires a PJSC to provide the SCA and the relevant Economic Department with a copy of the auditor’s report within seven days of the submission of the report to the general assembly. Thus an LLC will need to provide its audited financial statements to the Economic Department within the same time frame.

 

Article 3 of the Decision also sets forth provisions of the New Law which apply to PJSCs but do not apply to LLCs. ■