Category: inBriefs

New promotion regime for domestic funds

In late November 2018, the Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA), the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) of the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) announced that they had reached agreement on facilitating the licensing of domestic funds by each authority for promotion across the UAE.

 

This is a potentially significant development. Historically, onshore legislation in the UAE has not been suitable for the formation of funds in the UAE. This has changed somewhat in light of the new UAE Commercial Companies Law that came into effect in 2015 and subsequent regulations issued by the SCA designed to encourage domestic fund formation.

 

The DIFC and the ADGM have more comprehensive legislation regarding funds and funds established in these jurisdictions are not subject to the 51% UAE ownership requirement. Hence, they are generally viewed as more attractive destinations to establish funds than the UAE proper. However, the existence of three different regulatory regimes in the UAE has been an impediment to the growth of funds set up in the DIFC or the ADGM. Most potential investors are not located in these financial free zones and a fund set up in one of these zones must comply with the regulatory regime of the SCA when marketing to investors in the UAE. This not only increases the regulatory burden because such funds have to comply with the laws of two different jurisdictions with very different rules but, as a practical matter, it means that a fund set up in the DIFC or the ADGM has been treated the same as a fund set up in foreign country as far as the SCA is concerned.

 

Hopefully, the new regime that will be developed under the agreement signed by the SCA, the DFSA and the FSRA will put an end to that. The press release states:

 

“The SCA, DFSA, and FSRA agreed on a common legislative framework in their respective jurisdictions, enabling them, to facilitate regulatory coordination amongst them in licensing domestic funds upon the adoption of the legislation. The three bodies confirmed that funds, which are licensed in accordance with the provisions of this agreement and the licensing regulations, may be promoted in or from the financial free zones in the UAE, in line with the provisions of the agreement and the licensing regulations. Under the terms of the agreement, a notification and registration facility will be established by each regulator, facilitating the promotion and sale of domestic funds, set up within the UAE, outside the financial free zones, or in either of the DIFC or ADGM, to potential investors situated anywhere in the UAE, and under a single licence.”

 

In other words, if the new regime works as advertised, a fund set up in the DIFC or the ADGM will be able to market and sell to investors throughout the UAE while only having to comply with the regulatory requirements of its jurisdiction of incorporation.

 

It is not yet clear how long it will take to implement the new regime contemplated by the agreement. The press release states that the SCA, DFSA, and the FSRA have agreed to establish common rules to implement the regulatory regime contemplated by the agreement but provides no estimated timetable for when such rules might be published. It further explains that the authorities will undertake a consultation process regarding the proposed new regime. Notwithstanding the tentative nature of these formal communications, it appears that some investment firms in the DIFC are already advertising this new capability.

 

This agreement represents a very encouraging development that could have a positive impact on making the UAE a much more attractive place to establish funds. ■

Federal Penal Code amendments

In the latest development in an eventful year, Federal Decree-Law 24 of 2018 introduces amendments to the Federal Penal Code, originally enacted as Federal Law 3 of 1987.

 

The amendments are designed to make the Penal Code consistent with other recent federal legislation and current federal enforcement policies. Only ten provisions of the statute have been affected, out of the more than 400 total articles contained in the statute.

 

Confiscation of instruments of crime

 

Article 82 of the Penal Code authorises the confiscation of instruments used in commission of a crime. The 2018 amendments expand the category of items that may be confiscated, and they also allow the imposition of a fine equal to the value of the items in cases where confiscation does not occur.

 

The previous text of Article 82 read as follows:

 

The court shall, upon conviction, order confiscation of the seized things and property that were used in the crime, that by their type are for use in the crime, that were the subject of the crime or that were obtained from the crime, all without prejudice to the rights of good faith third parties.

 

The 2018 amendments restore the following clause to Article 82, which had been deleted by earlier amendments enacted in 2016:

 

If the manufacture, use, possession, sale or offer for sale of said things is considered a crime in itself, then in all cases the confiscation shall be ordered even if such things are not owned by the accused.

 

The 2018 amendments also add the following clause at the end of Article 82:

 

If any of the things or property stated in the first paragraph of this Article are not seized, or if an order of confiscation cannot be issued due to the rights of good faith third parties, then the court shall pass judgment for payment of a fine equal to their value at the time of commission of the crime.

 

National Defence Secrets

 

A new provision has been introduced as Article 170, defining the term National Defence Secrets. This article had been deleted by the 2016 amendments. The provision in its entirety now reads as follows:

 

Each of the following shall be considered a national defence secret:

 

1. Military, political, economic, industrial, scientific and security information related to the security of society, or other information that by its nature is known only by persons authorised therefor and which are required by the interests of the state to be kept secret from others.

 

2. Correspondence, writings, documents, drawings, maps, designs, pictures, coordinates, and other things that if revealed could result in the disclosure of the information stated in the preceding paragraph and which are required by the interests of the state to be kept secret from others than those entrusted to maintain or use the same.

 

3. News and information relating to the armed forces, the Ministry of Interior, and the security bodies, their formations, movements, ordnance, provisioning, staff and other issues that may prejudice military affairs or war and security plans, unless the competent authority issues written permission for the publication or broadcast thereof.

 

4. News and information relating to the measures and procedures followed for investigating the crimes set out in this chapter and for the apprehension of criminals, as well as news and information relating to the conduct of the investigation and adjudication if the investigating authority or the competent court prohibits the broadcast thereof.

 

External and internal security of the state

 

In 2016, a new chapter was added to the Penal Code addressing crimes against the external and internal security of the state. The specific article in this chapter that was amended in 2018 is Article 201 (repeated) (9), which allows a court to grant a convicted criminal an exemption from or reduction in penalty if the criminal has reported to the judicial or executive authorities any information relating to offenses against the external and internal security of the state.

 

When this provision was enacted in 2016, it provided as follows:

 

The court shall, at the request of the public prosecutor or on its own initiative, order reduction of or exemption from punishment in respect of criminals who have provided information to the judicial or executive authorities related to any felony harmful to the external or internal security of the state, when the same led to discovery of the felony or its perpetrators, proof of their commission of the felony, or arrest of any of them.

 

As now amended, the provision allows the court also to replace the punishment with a fine of not less than AED 100,000 and not more than AED 10,000,000, in addition to reduction of or exemption from the punishment. This may be done when the convicted defendant has provided information to the judicial or executive authorities related to any felony that is deemed to be harmful to the security of the state in other criminal statutes, in addition to any felony harmful to the external or internal security of the state.

 

Moreover, the amendments now limit the circumstances in which sentences may be reduced. Specifically, for a criminal that does not provide information under this article, only the public prosecutor may request the court considering the case to reduce the sentence, if the request relates to the supreme interests of the state or to any other national interest. The amended provision adds that, if sentence has already been pronounced by the court, then the public prosecutor may still request reduction prior to or during execution of the sentence.

 

Public officials

 

Several changes have been introduced to the provisions of the Penal Code that deal with the obligations of public officials, including the anti-bribery provisions.

 

Article 225 of the Penal Code makes it a criminal offense for a public official or a person charged with public service to abuse his office by obtaining without entitlement funds, papers or other materials belonging to the state or public body or by facilitating the same for another person. The 2018 amendments provide for a more severe punishment if such a crime is associated with or connected to forgery, the use of a forged document or the use of a forged copy of an official document.

 

Turning to the anti-bribery provisions, Article 225 (repeated) now provides that a public official who unlawfully obtains or attempts to obtain without entitlement, either for himself or another person, a profit or benefit from any activity pertaining to the obligations of his office shall be sentenced to imprisonment.

 

Article 234 expands the scope of the prohibited “quid pro quo” acts that constitute one of the elements of the crime of bribery on the part of a public official. The definition of bribery now appearing in Article 234 reads as follows:

 

A sentence of temporary imprisonment will be imposed on any public official, person charged with public service, foreign public official or official of an international organisation who requested, accepted or took, whether directly or indirectly, a gift, advantage or grant without entitlement, or a promise of the same, whether in favour of the official himself or for another person, entity or facility, in consideration of such official doing an act or refraining from an act pertaining to his office or breaching the obligations of his office, even if he intended not to do the act, to refrain therefrom or to breach the obligations of his office, or even if the request, acceptance or taking followed the performance of the act, the refraining therefrom, or the breach of the obligations of his office.

 

The sections underscored in the text above were added by the 2018 amendments. Taken together, the actus reus of the government official may be:

 

• committing an act pertaining to his office,

 

• refraining from an act pertaining to his office, or

 

• acting in breach of the obligations of his office.

 

Article 235 is added to the Penal Code. It provides that a sentence of temporary imprisonment may be imposed in the foregoing circumstances even if the actus reus of the government official is believed or alleged in error to pertain to his office.

 

Another new provision, Article 236, states that arbitrators, experts and investigators shall be deemed to be public officials within the confines of the tasks entrusted to them.

 

While the provisions discussed above address corruption by public officials, Article 237 addresses persons who attempt to bribe public officials. The amendments add, as an actus reus for this offense, an act by an official in breach of the obligations of his office.

 

Arbitrators

 

To the presumed relief of persons practicing as arbitrators in the UAE, Article 257 has been amended.

 

The amendments to the Penal Code that were introduced in 2016 provided that an arbitrator, expert, translator or investigator appointed by the administrative or judicial authorities or selected by parties who issues a decision, gives an opinion, submits a report, addresses a case or proves an incident for the benefit or against the benefit of a person, in a manner that fails to maintain the requirements of integrity and impartiality, shall be subject to imprisonment. The amended text now omits the arbitrator from this provision. Moreover, the amended text now imposes a criminal sanction only upon an expert, translator or investigator who knowingly makes a false statement.

 

Electronic Surveillance

 

Finally, under new Article 280 (repeated), it is a crime for a person under electronic surveillance to evade such surveillance or by any means to damage or hamper the remote monitoring device. Enhanced penalties can be imposed if the act in question involves the destruction in whole or in part of electronic reception and monitoring devices, in which case the defendant will also be required to pay the value of the damaged equipment. ■

Confidentiality under renewed focus

The UAE federal government has recently issued a raft of important legislation, addressing and in many ways updating areas of law that are key to businesses in the jurisdiction. Amongst this legislation is Federal Decree-Law 14 of 2018 concerning the central bank and the organisation of financial institutions and activities (the New Banking Law) and Federal Decree-Law 20 of 2018 concerning anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing (the New AML Law). Both the New Banking Law and the New AML Law repeal and replace the previous legislation on their respective subjects.

 

Importantly, the New Banking Law and the New AML Law have together enhanced the protection afforded to confidential information under UAE law, in particular where financial and legal service providers and their customers and clients are concerned.

 

Confidentiality under UAE law

 

While it has long been the case that confidential information was given protection, such protection was spread across various pieces of legislation. For example, it has been generally accepted that UAE law includes an obligation on the part of a bank or a financial institution to hold information concerning its customers as confidential. This was understood to form part of customary banking practice in the UAE and was confirmed through certain guidance issued by the Central Bank. Similarly, obligations of confidentiality were placed on other service providers through sector specific legislation on the matter (see for example, Dubai Law 11 of 2013 concerning obligations of insurance companies in the Emirate of Dubai and Federal Law 23 of 1991 concerning the licensing of advocates). A general obligation of confidentiality was also contained in the UAE Penal Code (being Federal Law 3 of 1987, as amended).

 

Each of the New Banking Law and the New AML Law improves on this position and places customer confidentiality on statutory footing.

 

Confidentiality under the New Banking Law

 

Article 120 of the New Banking Law provides that all data and information concerning accounts, deposits and safe deposit boxes  (along with transactions concerning these facilities) of a customer shall be considered confidential and must not be directly or indirectly disclosed to any third party, in each case without the prior written consent of the customer. The obligation to keep such data and information confidential is stated to continue for an indefinite period, notwithstanding the termination of the relationship between the account holder and the bank or financial institution. Importantly, Article 120(4) stipulates that the obligation of confidentiality extends to all “agencies” and “persons” and other entities that by virtue of their profession or employment have access to such information.

 

Though the clarity provided by the Banking Law with regards to customer confidentiality is welcome, it remains to be seen how this obligation will affect the exchange of credit information (for example, in the context of disclosure of financial information to a UAE credit rating agency). It also remains to be seen whether there will be clearly prescribed sanctions and/or penalties for breach of such obligations.

 

The Banking Law provides that the Central Bank will issue further rules on this matter and it is anticipated that these rules will provide the required granularity to the confidentiality obligations set forth in the New Banking Law.

 

Confidentiality under the New AML Law

 

Like the New Banking Law, the New AML Law contains guidance with respect to confidentiality. Importantly, Article 15 of the New AML Law contains an exception to the obligation of a bank or financial institution covered by the New Banking Law to hold customer information confidential. In summary, such a bank or financial institution must issue a notification in the prescribed form to the designated unit within the Central Bank, where it has reasonable grounds to suspect a transaction or funds concerns a crime. In such case, the bank or financial institution must inform the designated unit within the Central Bank of its suspicion “without delay” and must include an appropriate level of detail on the account or transaction concerned, and without regard to the confidentiality of such information. It remains to be seen how banks and financial institutions will balance their obligations of confidentiality (as now enshrined within the New Banking Law) against their obligations of disclosure under the New AML Law. The obligation to report suspicious transactions is also imposed on Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions, a category that will be detailed in the implementing regulations contemplated by the new AML Law. Importantly, it remains to be seen how banks will determine what constitutes “reasonable” grounds. Is mere suspicion adequate?

 

Interestingly, the New AML Law provides (albeit indirect) recognition to the fact that lawyers (including those licensed as “legal consultants” in addition to those licensed as “advocates”) owe a duty to their clients to treat information received from such clients as confidential. It was previously the case that the confidentiality obligations of a legal consultant had to be derived by analogy to Federal Law 23 of 1991 concerning the licensing of advocates and, in the Emirate of Dubai, from the provisions of the draft code of conduct issued by the Dubai Legal Affairs Department.

 

Article 15 of the New AML Law stipulates that lawyers, notaries and other legal professionals are exempt from the requirements of disclosure contained in article 15 of the New AML Law, provided such information is received “subject to professional confidentiality”. This exemption is also extended to independent legal auditors. While the introduction of such exemption is welcome, it remains to be seen how the courts and authorities will interpret the requirement for the relevant information to have been received “subject to professional confidentiality” and whether the implementing regulations contemplated by the New AML Law will place limits on this exemption.

 

Despite further guidance pending, these legislative developments highlight the importance of confidentiality for businesses that receive and deal with confidential information. It also helps to bring into focus the high level of importance placed by UAE policy makers on matters of confidentiality and privacy. Businesses in the UAE would be well advised to take note of these developments and to stay alert for further developments in this field. ■

 

New anti-money laundering law

The new anti-money laundering (AML) law of the UAE took effect at the end of October 2018. Containing features recommended by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the new law introduces subtle but important changes to the AML landscape in the UAE.

 

The new law was enacted as Federal Decree-Law 20 of 2018. The previous AML law was Federal Law 4 of 2002, as amended by Federal Law 9 of 2014, and the implementing regulations that were promulgated pursuant to Cabinet Resolution 38 of 2014. The new law indicates that new implementing regulations will likewise be promulgated, although they have yet to be issued.

 

Prior to the 2014 amendments, AML compliance was confined to specific of regulatory silos. In particular, obligations were imposed on banks, other financial institutions, insurance companies, accountants, best lawyers, and businesses active in the Dubai International Financial Center and the Abu Dhabi Global Market. The 2014 amendments expanded the AML compliance obligation to all businesses and professions. This is continued by the new statute, but with somewhat greater precision. Specifically, the new statute imposes AML compliance obligations on Financial Institutions and on Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs), terms adapted from the FATF. The implementing regulations will specify which DNFBPs will be subject to AML compliance obligations under the new statute.

 

It was an often overlooked feature of the 2014 amendments that AML compliance throughout the economy was required. This is continued and enhanced by the new statute. Both Financial Institutions and DNFBPs are required to comply fully with the express prohibitions contained in AML statute, to report suspicious transactions to the Financial Information Unit of the Central Bank, to conduct due diligence with counterparties, to adopt internal guidelines to ensure that AML violations will not be committed inadvertently, to provide regular training to personnel, and to conduct regular and ongoing AML assessments of the business risks and sector risks that they face. Regulators throughout the UAE are instructed to ensure compliance with these requirements.

 

In a potentially significant change, the new statute obliges each Financial Institution and DNFBP to conduct a risk-based assessment of its business activities and to adopt compliance measures based upon such risk-based assessment. An appreciation of the risks should guide conduct of due diligence of proposed customers and ultimate beneficial owners so that AML efforts might be most efficiently deployed. The previous law did not mandate a risk-based approach to AML obligations, and indeed a non-calibrated “one size fits all” approach was widely used in the conduct of due diligence investigations on proposed customers and counterparties. Importantly, the new law leaves open the question of which factors a Financial Institution or a DFNBP would consider when undertaking the assessment. We expect that this will be clarified in due course by the anticipated implementing regulations.

 

The law enforcement toolkit is substantially enhanced by the new statute. The authorities are given enhanced ability to investigate and prosecute offenses and to gain access to records in connection with the same. The power of the Central Bank to order an account freeze based on a suspicious activity report is maintained, but such a freeze may now be extended by order of the public prosecutor or its delegate beyond the initial seven day period, whereas the previous law required a judicial order for such an extension. Sanctions for violations are substantially enhanced, including measures directed at individual managers and directors. In a measure inspired by practices followed in London and Washington, the authorities are given the power to impose continuing reporting and monitoring obligations on businesses following an initial indictment.

 

In addition, there are express obligations to cooperate with international investigations and enforcement measures. The new statute addresses matters such as the collection of documentation, interrogation of witnesses and extradition of suspects, as well as the honoring and enforcement of orders and judgments from foreign countries.

 

In terms of prohibited conduct, the new statute makes only minor changes in comparison with the 2014 amendments. The definition of a predicate offense is considerably expanded. A predicate offense is now defined as any act constituting a felony or misdemeanor under the applicable laws of the UAE, whether the act is committed inside or outside of the UAE, when such act is punishable both in the UAE and in the country where it was committed. In addition, it is now stated unambiguously that the handling of funds that are tainted by association with a terrorist organisation or an illegal organisation would be a money laundering offense.

 

The obligation to file suspicious transaction reports with the Financial Information Unit of the Central Bank is maintained. However, for the first time, a professional privilege exception is introduced applicable to lawyers, notaries and other legal professionals and independent legal auditors. The scope of this privilege, never before acknowledged expressly in the AML context, is to be elaborated in the implementing regulations.

 

The FATF is scheduled to commence a mutual evaluation with the UAE in mid-2019 on the current state of AML compliance in the UAE. The new statute is a proactive initiative to introduce best-practice AML regulations according with the FATF’s guidelines. ■

 

The new Foreign Direct Investment law

News of a new federal law on foreign direct investment in the UAE has many people asking: “Does this mean I can now form a new company with majority foreign ownership?”

 

The answer is the same as previously, “No, not yet”.

 

Companies incorporated in the UAE require a minimum of 51 per cent UAE ownership. As an exception to this rule, 100 per cent foreign ownership is permitted in free zones. The new law may lead to further exceptions in the future.

 

Federal Decree-Law 19 of 2018 (the “FDI Law”) was issued on 23 September 2018. The FDI Law adopts a similar approach to majority foreign ownership as the UAE Commercial Companies Law. An amendment to Article 10 of the Companies Law adopted in September of 2017 (pursuant to Federal Decree-Law 18 of 2017) stipulated that the UAE Cabinet (the “Cabinet”) may adopt resolutions permitting greater than 49 per cent foreign ownership.  The Cabinet remains the key decision maker under the FDI Law.

 

Under the FDI Law, the Cabinet will appoint a Foreign Direct Investment Committee to be presided over by the Minister of Economy. The Foreign Direct Investment Committee shall be responsible for studying and making recommendations to the Cabinet regarding foreign direct investment but the ultimate determination will be made by decision of the Cabinet.

 

The FDI Law sets out a “Negative List” of thirteen sectors where existing laws and restrictions will continue to apply and majority foreign ownership will not be permitted:

 

• Exploration and production of petroleum products.

• Investigations, security, military sectors and manufacturing of weapons, explosives as well as military hardware, equipment and clothing.

• Banking and financing activities and payment and cash handling systems.

• Insurance services.

• Hajj and Umrah services and labour supply and recruitment services.

• Water and electricity services

• Services related to fisheries.

• Postal, communication and audio-visual services.

• Land and air transport services.

• Printing and publishing services.

• Commercial agents services.

• Retail medicine such as private pharmacies.

• Poison centres, blood banks and quarantines.

 

Activities may be added to or removed from the Negative List by decision of the Cabinet.

 

The FDI Law also provides that the Cabinet shall, based on a proposal of the Minister of Economy and recommendations of the Foreign Direct Investment Committee and subject to certain conditions set out in the FDI Law, issue a decision creating a “Positive List” where foreign direct investment projects of up to 100% foreign ownership will be allowed. The Positive List has not yet been created and the FDI Law sets no timetable for its creation.

 

Recent media reports state that on 12 November 2018, during the World Economic Forum’s Global Futures Council Meeting in Dubai, the UAE Minister of Economy told reporters that sectors under consideration for the Positive List include technology, outer space, renewable energy, artificial intelligence and manufacturing, among others. According to some reports, the government aims to have the Positive List published during the first quarter of 2019. Media reports regarding legislative developments should be viewed cautiously. Historically, predicted implementation dates have often not been met.

 

In addition to the requirement of a Cabinet decision, local approval and licensing requirements apply in each Emirate. Like all companies, FDI companies must obtain a license from the concerned licensing authority in the Emirate of incorporation. Moreover, the FDI Law provides that FDI companies must also obtain the approval of the competent authority in each Emirate in charge of foreign direct investment in such Emirate. This may require measures in each Emirate either creating a new authority for such purpose or designating an existing authority (in most Emirates, probably the Economic Department) as the competent authority for the purposes of the FDI Law.

 

There are several other interesting aspects of the FDI Law that are beyond the limited scope of this inBrief. The main point to be highlighted here is that the new FDI Law does not mean majority foreign ownership is a current reality.  The framework is now in place, but implementation is yet to come.■

Application for an anti-suit injunction: dismissed

In an order dated 31 October 2018, the DIFC Court accepted that a party seeking an anti-suit injunction against proceedings in a foreign court must show that proceeding before the foreign court is or would be “vexatious or oppressive” to that party. The DIFC Court further held that where the applicant has the option of obtaining a stay of proceedings in the foreign court itself, the DIFC Court would have no “compelling reason” to grant an anti-suit injunction; to do so would not be in line with the overriding objectives of the Court.

 

Case Background

 

Afridi & Angell continue to represent the Claimants in an ongoing employment dispute (case number CFI 015-2018) in the Dubai International Finance Centre’s Court of First Instance (the DIFC Court).

 

The First and Second Claimant are group companies which conduct business in international commodities and financial services. With operations in financial centres around the world, they are registered in the DIFC and the United Kingdom, respectively (together, the Claimants).

 

The First Defendant is a former employee of the First Claimant and a current employee of the Second Defendant, a company licensed in the DIFC with a similar business to that of the Claimants. The Third Defendant is the company secretary and office operations manager of the Second Defendant. The First, Second and Third Defendants are referred to collectively as the Three Defendants.

 

In March 2018, the Claimants issued proceedings in the DIFC Court seeking immediate relief against the conduct of the Three Defendants (the DIFC Proceedings). The basis of the DIFC Proceedings is related to the resignation of the First Defendant from the Claimants and the actions of the First Defendant in the lead up to, and after, his resignation. The Claimants allege that the First Defendant, who at the time was an employee of the First Claimant, conspired with and assisted the Second and Third Defendants (his new employer and its company secretary, respectively) to facilitate the taking of the Claimants’ clients and employees to the business of the Second Defendant. The Claimants sought the assistance of the DIFC Court and issued proceedings to enforce the restrictive covenants contained in the First Defendant’s contract of employment, and to prevent the First Defendant from using confidential information of the Claimants for the benefit of the Second Defendant in the first “springboard injunction” proceedings before the DIFC Court.

 

The Claimants also initiated proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the US Proceedings) against: (i) the Third Defendant; (ii) the parent company of the Second Defendant (the Parent Company); and (iii) the Chief Operating Officer of the Parent Company. The US Proceedings were instituted to prevent the Parent Company from an international attempt to poach the Claimants’ employees.

 

The Second and Third Defendants (the Defendants) consequently submitted an application to the DIFC Courts in the form of an anti-suit injunction requesting an Order for the Claimants to stay the US Proceedings.

 

Anti-suit Injunctions in the DIFC Courts

 

An anti-suit injunction is a form of relief sought against a party to prevent them from either instituting a legal action or continuing with proceedings that have already been commenced.

 

The power of the DIFC Court to grant anti-suit injunctions was confirmed in Brookfield Multiplex v DIFCI LLC [2016] DIFC CFI 020 in which the DIFC Court held that it has the power to grant anti-suit injunctions pursuant to Article 32 of DIFC Law 10 of 2004.

 

Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke summarised the principles applicable to the grant of an anti-suit injunction by the DIFC Court in the following terms:

 

“It is self-evident that this Court should not interfere with the decisions of other courts of competent jurisdiction…and should not impugn the contents of their judgments. It is only where there is an absence of jurisdiction or where proceedings are vexatious and oppressive that a court is ordinarily prepared to grant an anti-suit injunction.” (emphasis added)

 

The position of the Defendants in CFI 015-2018 

 

The Defendants application requesting an Order for the Claimants to stay the US Proceedings was based on the premise that the DIFC Court has the power to grant relief where the continuation of the foreign claim would be vexatious and oppressive. It was recognised that there was a heavy burden of proof on the Defendants, but it was argued that the applicable threshold had been discharged.

 

The Defendants made the following submissions in support of their assertion that the continuation of the US Proceedings would be vexatious and oppressive:

 

(1) The similar nature of the DIFC and US Proceedings creates a risk of conflicting decisions regarding the same facts as well as extensive and duplicative costs;

 

(2) One of the three defendants in the US Proceedings is resident in the UAE; another defendant in the US Proceedings is a non-trading company; and the relief of worldwide injunction the Claimant seeks in the US Proceedings is fanciful;

 

(3) The events at the heart of the Claimants claim all had a connection with the DIFC and there is no evidence of any link with the USA;

 

(4) The US Proceedings were brought in order to disrupt the Defendants preparation for trial of the DIFC Proceedings and as a means to harass the Defendants; and

 

(5) The relief sought would not interfere with US sovereignty.

 

The position of the Claimants in CFI 015-2018

 

The Claimants agreed that for an anti-suit injunction to be granted it must be shown that the pursuit of the foreign proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive on the injunction applicant (the Defendants). It was further iterated that the high burden of proof is at all times on the applicant and not the respondent to the application (the Claimants).

 

For the Defendants application to succeed, the Defendants must show that:

 

(1) The DIFC is the natural forum for the US Proceedings; and

 

(2) The US Proceedings are either vexatious or oppressive.

 

The Claimants invited the Courts to dismiss the Defendants’ application for an anti-suit injunction on the following grounds:

 

(1) The DIFC is not the natural forum for the US Proceedings on the grounds that:

 

a. the US Proceedings involve different parties each of whom have accepted service of the US Proceedings;

 

b. the US Proceedings involve a different, and notably broader, factual scope;

 

c. the causes of action in the US Proceedings are either broader or different (as applicable), with some being based on both federal and Illinois state legislation;

 

d. the relief sought in the US Proceedings is different. It would be unjust to deprive the Claimants of the additional relief available, and the additional defendants upon whom any judgment can be enforced, in the foreign proceedings; and

 

e. there is a fundamental nexus between the US Proceedings and the United States, namely that the key actions with which the US Proceedings are concerned occurred in Chicago.

 

(2) The US Proceedings are not vexatious or oppressive. As explained by Mr Justice Cooke in Kyrgyz Mobil Tel. Ltd v Fellowes International Holdings Ltd [2005] EWHC 1314 (Comm), the question that must be asked is “whether or not there was a reason justifying the foreign proceedings”. For all the reasons above, this was clearly the case. Furthermore, with particular regard to the additional relief that the Claimants are entitled to seek in the US Proceedings, the Claimants again cited Mr Justice Cooke who explained that “for that reason alone it cannot be said that there was any vexation or oppression.”

 

(3) Notwithstanding the above, whether to grant an anti-suit injunction remains a matter for the Court’s discretion and it was the Claimants position that it would be inappropriate to exercise that discretion. In support of this view, the Claimants averred that:

 

a. the Defendants evidenced an intention to issue an application for a stay of the US Proceedings and as such, and having regard to the basic principles of comity, it is right that the DIFC Court does not interfere but rather allows the US Court to decide whether to entertain the application; and

 

b. the DIFC Proceedings would likely be concluded long before a final judgment is issued in the US Proceedings meaning there is no realistic prospect of conflicting judgments. As such, the injunctive relief sought would be futile.

 

The Order of the DIFC Court in CFI 015-2018

 

His Excellency Justice Omar Al Muhairi stated that he “found the Defendants submissions to be weak” and that there was “no compelling reason” for the Court to order the Claimants to stay the US Proceedings. Accordingly, the Defendants application for an anti-suit injunction was dismissed.

 

In summary, Justice Al Muhairi “agree[d] with the Claimants submissions” and found that:

 

(1) the US Proceedings were different both in respect of the parties involved and the relief sought;

 

(2) he accepted the principle set out in Deutsche Bank AG v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners [2010] 1 WLR 1023 that the party seeking an anti-suit injunction must show that the proceeding before the foreign court is or would be vexatious or oppressive; the Claimants claim in the US Proceedings would be neither “vexatious nor oppressive”;

 

(3) “no apparent injustice” would be suffered by the Defendants should the DIFC Court refuse to order the Claimant to stay the US Proceedings as the Defendants to the US Proceedings “are perfectly capable of making a stay application in the USA proceedings themselves”; and

 

(4) making an order for an anti-suit injunction in such circumstances would “put the parties on unequal footing” which would “not be in line with the overriding objectives of th[e] Court”.

 

Following on from the establishment of the DIFC’s power to grant anti-suit injunctions, this landmark case re-iterates the applicable threshold that must be satisfied for an anti-suit injunction to be granted in the DIFC Court.  The case helpfully highlights the high burden of proof on the applicant, whilst also providing examples of relevant considerations taken by the DIFC Court, namely comity, access to justice, and the overriding objectives of the Court, when considering such applications. ■

Big brother is watching

The DIFC Court has confirmed that businesses in the DIFC can listen in and make use of telephone conversations made by their employees. His Excellency Justice Omar Al Muhairi issued an order to this effect on 31 October in the case of ED&F Man Capital Markets MENA Ltd and RJ O’Brien MENA Capital Ltd (and others). Afridi & Angell are representing ED&F Man Capital Markets MENA Ltd in this matter. Lawyers for the defendants had sought to exclude evidence introduced by ED&F which consisted of transcripts of telephone conversations made by ED&F employees. Defendants’ counsel claimed that such recordings were a breach of the UAE Penal Code, and therefore should be inadmissible in the DIFC Court proceedings. Justice Al Muhairi rejected this argument on two grounds. Firstly, on the basis that the individuals involved in the telephone conversations had provided consent to the recordings, and secondly on the basis that the Dubai Financial Services Authority mandates the recording of communications relating to transactions. ■

Remote litigation in Dubai Labour Court

On 18 October 2018, the Dubai Court and the Ministry of Human Resources & Emiratisation (MOHRE) launched a “remote litigation service” for labour disputes under AED 20,000 in value.

 

Under this initiative, the requirement of personally attending hearings for labour disputes under AED 20,000 is dispensed with, and parties and their representatives are permitted to ‘attend’ the hearing before the judge electronically. The cases will be heard by a single judge, who is required to render judgment within 24 hours. This initiative has been introduced in order to dispose of low value labour cases in Dubai quickly and efficiently.

 

Labour complaints can be filed physically, electronically, or by calling the MOHRE hotline (80060). Once the case is registered, the parties to the case (i.e. the employer and the employee) are required to attend in person before a Tawafuq Centre to attempt settlement of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved, and the value of the dispute is under AED 20,000, it will be referred to the labour court to be considered under the remote litigation service. The parties will be provided with an electronic link which will enable them to upload written submissions and evidence, and attend a hearing remotely if required. The service will also allow the parties to access the judgment electronically.

 

The service is not yet operational, and is expected to start functioning in November 2018. ■

New services by Dubai Rental Disputes Centre

Launch of the New Rental Good Conduct Certificate Service 

 

On 8 October, the Rental Disputes Centre in Dubai launched the Rental Good Conduct Certificate service.

 

This service is a first-of-its-kind initiative in the world.

 

We set out below what the service will provide and how to access it.

 

• The service will allow:

 

o a tenant to inquire whether or not a rental case has been filed against them;

 

o a landlord to inquire about a potential tenant, and whether a rental case has been filed against them in the past; and/or

 

o a tenant to inquire about the landlord and whether they are known to cause legal problems with tenants.

 

• It is hoped that the new service will reduce the number of rental disputes by providing both the tenant and landlord with accurate information on each other. This in turn will allow the parties to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to sign the tenancy contract.

 

• The data will be provided by the Rental Disputes Centre, which has stated that it will do so without violating the laws of confidentiality in Dubai.

 

• The service can be obtained by phoning the Rental Disputes Centre or by downloading the Rental Disputes Centre app from the Apple Store or Play Store.

 

Launch of “remote litigation” by the Rental Disputes Centre

 

On 4 October, the Rental Disputes Center in Dubai launched the Remote Litigation service. The service will allow parties to rental disputes, or their representatives, to attend the hearing before the judge electronically.

 

The new mechanism will work as follows:

 

• A claimant can choose the option of “remote litigation” at the time of registering its rental dispute case.

 

• A date and time will be fixed for the hearing of the case electronically.

 

• On the hearing date, a link will be sent via email to the parties. The parties will use this link for attending the hearing electronically along with the judge.

 

• The judge will then fix a date for the judgment, after which the judgment will be available to the parties electronically.

 

It is hoped that this new mechanism will reduce the time for settling rental disputes in Dubai.

 

Travel Ban in Rental Disputes  

 

In June 2108, the Rental Dispute Centre announced a new mechanism for an automatic travel ban to apply to defendants in certain rental disputes. Under this mechanism, a travel ban will be issued automatically to defendants in rental disputes which involve monetary claims at the time of registration of the dispute.

 

The mechanism is required as the Rental Disputes Centre is facing a number of cases where defendants have left Dubai in order to avoid the execution of judgments against them.

 

The Rental Disputes Centre has announced that the travel ban can be lifted within five minutes if the defendant pays the claimed amount or provides acceptable security for the claim amount. The defendant can make an application to lift the travel ban electronically. The application can be made, and the lifting service is available, even on the weekends and holidays. If an application to lift a travel ban is successful, the relevant order from the judge to lift the travel ban will be communicated electronically to Dubai police to execute it.■

Netting arrangements in qualified financial contracts made enforceable

For decades, banks and other counterparties in the UAE have obtained financial services from foreign financial institutions. Industry bodies, such as the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), the International Capital Market Association and the International Securities Lending Association, have developed standard documentation for these kinds of transactions. A new statute in the UAE makes it clear for the first time that the netting and setoff provisions in such documentation are valid and enforceable under UAE law. Among other matters, this clarity should reduce the cost to UAE counterparties of obtaining these financial services.

 

Federal Decree-Law 10 of 2018 on Netting (the Netting Law) was published in the UAE Federal Gazette on 30 September 2018 and will take effect on 30 October 2018 (the Effective Date). It is a significant development to the derivatives framework in the UAE, in terms of both the legal enforceability of such arrangements and the ability to implement close-out netting (i.e., netting of obligations following an event of default or termination event), particularly following the bankruptcy of one of the parties. The Netting Law is closely modelled on the 2018 ISDA Model Netting Act and Guide (as published by ISDA) and applies to all Qualified Financial Contracts, Netting Agreements or Collateral Arrangements entered into by a person or entity in the UAE (other than persons and entities located in financial free zones, i.e., the DIFC and ADGM, which have separate netting regulations).

 

Netting

 

The Netting Law allows parties to enter into Netting Agreements for the purposes of netting off their payment and delivery obligations under Qualified Financial Contracts (Netting). A Netting provision may include the following features:

 

(a) any termination, liquidation and/or acceleration of payment/delivery rights or obligations under Qualified Financial Contracts entered into under a Netting Agreement or to which a Netting Agreement applies;

 

(b) calculation, estimation or adoption of an index of close-out or termination value, market value, liquidation value or any other relevant value, which may arise from a party’s failure to enter into or perform a transaction under a Netting Agreement, where the rights and/or obligations of the parties under such Netting Agreement have been terminated, liquidated and/or accelerated under point (a), above;

 

(c) conversion of the values calculated under point (b), above, into a single currency;

 

(d) determination of the net balance of values calculated under point (b), above, as converted under point (c), above, whether by operation of setoff or netting; and

 

(e) entry into an arrangement whereby the net amount calculated above becomes payable directly or as part of either the (i) consideration for a specific asset or (ii) damages for non-performance of such transaction.

 

The Netting Law currently identifies 23 categories of agreements as Qualified Financial Contracts (which create either a right to receive or an obligation to make a payment or delivery or to transfer title to assets/commodities for consideration) including all types of swaps (in relation to currencies, interest rates, basis rates or commodities), forward rate agreements, currency or interest rate futures, currency or interest rate options, derivatives (relating to bonds, energy, bandwidth, freight, emissions and property index), securities contracts, Collateral Arrangements,1   commodities related contracts and any Shari’ah compliant equivalent of the above agreements. This list may be expanded by the Committee for Designation of Qualified Financial Contracts (the Committee), which will be formed under a resolution issued by the UAE Minister of Finance (the Resolution).

 

Under the Netting Law, Netting Agreements include:

 

(a) any agreement between two parties for Netting of present or future rights to or obligations for payments or delivery, or transfer of title arising in connection with one or more Qualified Financial Contract between the parties (a Master Agreement);

 

(b) any agreement providing for the Netting of amounts due under two or more Master Netting Agreements (a Master Netting Agreement);

 

(c) any Collateral Arrangements relating to or forming part of a Master Netting Agreement or Master Agreement;

 

(d) any Shari’ah compliant agreement or arrangement which is intended to have a similar effect as an agreement under points (a) through (c) above or any other Netting Agreement; and

 

(e) any agreements, contracts or transactions which falls within the definition of a Qualified Financial Contract.

 

A Netting Agreement and all Qualified Financial Contracts to which it applies will constitute a single agreement.

 

Legal Recognition

 

Under UAE law, futures, margin trading and derivatives transactions generally have been viewed as potentially unenforceable due to perceived gharar, an unacceptable level of risk or uncertainty that undermines contract formation. For this reason, the potential exists – and UAE courts have held in some instances – that derivatives are unenforceable “contracts of risk,” even when used to manage risk (as in hedging contracts) rather than to create risk or to speculate. Even for Shari’ah compliant hedging products in the market (for example, the ISDA/IIFM Tahawwut Master Agreement), which are supported by fatwas confirming that such products are Shari’ah compliant and free of gharar, there was no certainty on how the courts would hold. The Netting Law has minimized, if not eliminated, these uncertainties by providing that Qualified Financial Contracts shall not be void, unenforceable, or not final by reason of gharar under the UAE Civil Code.

 

Bankruptcy

 

Under the UAE Bankruptcy Law, a debtor and creditor may only set off obligations (i) if the conditions for exercising the setoff are satisfied before initiating procedures under the UAE Bankruptcy Law, (ii) if conducted as part of the implementation of a preventative composition or restructuring scheme or (iii) as approved by the court.

 

The Netting Law provides that the provisions of a Netting Agreement shall be deemed final and enforceable (including against a third party security provider, even if such third party becomes insolvent), even following the insolvency of one of the parties thereto. The arrangements under a Netting Agreement may not be suspended, delayed or made conditional merely by the appointment of a liquidator or the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings or under any other law applicable to insolvent parties. Insolvency and/or bankruptcy proceedings will not affect the Netting arrangements under a Netting Agreement or a Qualified Financial Contract (or any other financial contract) to which a Netting Agreement applies. Similarly, the provisions of a Netting Agreement shall not be affected by any limitations on setoff or netting imposed under any insolvency or bankruptcy laws.

 

In case of procedures under the UAE Bankruptcy Law, the liquidator or trustee of a party to a Netting Agreement (the Insolvent Party) may annul, stop or refuse the performance of a transaction constituting a preference to a non-insolvent third party (the Third Party). For example, such a transaction could be the transfer of cash, assets, property or collateral from the Insolvent Party to the Third Party under a Netting Agreement. However, the liquidator or trustee may do so only on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that such Third Party entered into the transaction with the intention to prevent, hinder or delay debt recovery by a current or future creditor of the Insolvent Party. There is no definition of “clear and convincing evidence” (a term that has no antecedent in UAE law), but the concept would appear to present a higher hurdle than a mere preponderance of evidence. Significantly, there are no other grounds in the Netting Law for a liquidator or trustee to fail to implement Netting.

 

Multi-Branch Netting

 

In line with the 2018 ISDA Model Netting Act and Guide, the Netting Law has recognized Multi-Branch Netting Agreements (the MBNA) as Netting Agreements under which a party can enter into Qualified Financial Contracts through its Home Office (i.e., the office in its Home Country) and one of its branches or agencies in countries other than its Home Country (i.e., the jurisdiction where such party is incorporated regulated or duly registered).

 

In the event of the insolvency of a foreign party’s branch/agency (the Branch), its liability (or the liability of its liquidator in the UAE) to the non-insolvent counterparty (the Counterparty) shall be calculated on the date of the termination of the Qualified Financial Contract under the MBNA and limited to the lesser of (i) the foreign party’s net payment obligations2 (as adjusted by any payments to the Counterparty and the fair market value of any collateral provided by the foreign party under the MBNA) or (ii) the Branch’s net payment obligation.3  The foreign party’s net payment entitlement4 from the Counterparty (as adjusted by any payments made to the liquidator of the foreign party and the fair market value of any collateral provided by the Counterparty under the MBNA) shall be netted against the Counterparty’s net payment entitlement from the foreign party. The Counterparty may liquidate any collateral (provided under an MBNA) and apply the proceeds against settlement of sums due from the foreign party under any related Qualified Financial Contracts. Any excess collateral shall be returned.

 

The Committee

 

The Committee shall undertake the following responsibilities in accordance with the mechanisms outlined in the Resolution:

 

(a) providing opinions on topics relating to Qualified Financial Contracts;

 

(b) designating any additional financial agreement, contract or transaction as a Qualified Financial Contract;

 

(c) amending the list of Qualified Financial Contracts; and

 

(d) any other function designated by the UAE Cabinet.

 

Conclusion

 

The introduction of the Netting Law is a sign of the UAE’s desire to participate fully in international markets for financial services. UAE counterparties will now be able, more readily and presumably at lower cost, to take advantage of the full range of products that are available.

 

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how the Netting Law will be implemented by the courts in specific cases. Financial contracts concluded before the Effective Date that qualify as Netting Agreements or Qualified Financial Contracts should now be enforceable, even though enforceability might have been uncertain when the contracts were first concluded. Proceedings under the UAE Bankruptcy Law will be governed by the Netting Law as of the Effective Date, but trustee, liquidator or court actions taken before the Effective Date would presumably remain undisturbed even if inconsistent with the Netting Law. We will continue to report as these and other issues are addressed in the coming weeks and months. ■

 

*****

1 The Netting Law defines a Collateral Arrangement as a margin, variation margin, collateral or security procedure or other credit enhancement tool relating to a Netting Agreement or Qualified Financial Contract entered into under a Netting Agreement or to which a Netting Agreement applies, including (a) pledges, mortgages and charges (whether possessory or non-possessory), (b) Title Transfer Collateral Arrangements (as defined in the Netting Law) and (c) any guarantee, letter of credit or reimbursement obligation by or to a party to a Qualified Financial Contract, in connection with such Qualified Financial Contract.
2 The aggregate of all amounts owed by the foreign party (including subsidiaries and affiliates) to the Counterparty after giving effect to the Netting provisions under the MBNA and all related Qualified Financial Contracts.
3 The amount (if any) owed by the Counterparty to the Branch under a MBNA after giving effect to the Netting provisions under all related Qualified Financial Contracts between the Counterparty and Branch.
4 (i) The aggregate of all amounts owed by the Counterparty (including to any subsidiaries and affiliates of the foreign party) to the foreign party after giving effect to the Netting provisions under the MBNA and all related Qualified Financial Contracts or (ii) the aggregate amount owed if the MBNA contained provisions providing for payments to the parties, upon termination of related Qualified Financial Contracts.