Category: inBriefs

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. ■

Introducing the Dubai World Trade Centre free zone

In May 2015, a new free zone in Dubai, Dubai World Trade Centre (“DWTC”) and the “DWTC Authority” were established under Dubai Law No. 9 of 2015. DWTC’s stated objective is to provide services in the form of conferences and exhibitions as well as world-class hospitality and facilities management in a wide selection of venues. It has been reported that Schlumberger was the first company to be licensed under the new free zone, acquiring 5,762 square meters in the office building in Dubai Trade Centre District (“DTCD”).

 

Establishing a Company

 

The newly established free zone will follow the model of most other free zones in Dubai. It will incorporate branches of local companies; branches of foreign companies; single shareholder free zone establishments (FZEs) and multiple shareholder free zone companies (FZCOs). The minimum capital required will be AED 300,000.

 

The activities list available for companies in DWTC consists of three broad categories which are: (i) Trading; (ii) Services; and (iii) Events. The Events license includes activities such as organizing meetings, conferences and exhibitions. Each of the three broad license categories contains a prescribed list of activities which are accepted by the free zone. The DWTC appears to be following the example of the Dubai World Central free zone in that it will adhere to the Dubai Department of Economic Development’s activity list for licensed activities (albeit a restricted list).

 

The DWTC Company Regulations were established in September along with the DWTC Rules and Regulations. DWTC incorporated its first company at the beginning of November 2015 and it has office space which is ready to lease immediately. It has been reported that pre-letting of the office buildings in DTCD is already 70 percent.

 

Why choose DWTC?

 

One of the most attractive features of DWTC is its prime location. Sheikh Rashid Tower was built in 1979 and is one of the best known landmarks in Dubai. Located close to Downtown and the DIFC, DWTC is in an enviable central location which will surely be a deciding factor for many companies assessing which free zone is right for them. Another feature of DWTC is the facilities it offers, ranging from residential units, corporate units, exhibition halls and the Trade Centre Arena.

 

DWTC is still in its very early stages and we are looking forward to seeing how it develops and how it is embraced by the Dubai business community. Every indication is that it will be a popular and successful new venture. We will provide updates as it progresses further.

 

Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you would like to explore the possibility of establishing an entity in DWTC. ■

New labour regulations take effect January 1, 2016

A number of recently announced initiatives could introduce potentially significant changes to the rules governing the workforce in the UAE.

 

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Labour promulgated Ministerial Resolutions Nos. 764, 765 and 766 of 2015. According to the reports of Ministry of Labour spokesmen that appeared in the local press, the new resolutions were designed to deter a number of undesirable practices. Chief among these was the practice by recruiters of luring potential employees to the UAE with attractive job offers, only to change the terms of employment when the new recruits arrive.

 

Specifically, Ministerial Resolution No. 764 of 2015 requires that an employee sign an offer letter in advance of being recruited and that the signed offer letter support the application for the employee’s residence visa and labour permit – an application that the employer must submit to the concerned authorities in the UAE. A signed offer letter must also support an application to hire a new employee from the local labour market.

 

The new Resolution not only ensures that the employment contract will be consistent with the original offer letter. It also ensures that the employment contract must be followed in all respects. As regards employers that maintain collateral agreements, the Resolution provides that, “No new clauses may be added to the stated contract unless they are consistent and comply with the Ministry’s legal requirements, do not conflict with other clauses of the standard contract and are approved by the Ministry.”

 

Of course, many employers use international employment contracts and detailed HR policies to supplement the brief standard employment contracts that are required by the Ministry of Labour. Provisions in such collateral documents that are inconsistent with the official registered contract would be unenforceable. It could now be the case that such collateral terms will be unenforceable if they are not approved in advance by the Ministry of Labour.

 

Resolutions Nos. 765 and 766 facilitate the transfer of employees within the UAE. They do this by providing, in Resolution 765, clear criteria as to when the authorities may deem an employment relationship to have ended. Ending an existing employment relationship is a pre-requisite to allowing an employee to seek work with another employer. Of course, most employment relationships end with the routine cancellation of an employee’s labour permit and residence visa, a process that is not disturbed by the new resolutions.

 

Specifically, Resolution No. 765 provides that the employment relationship ends if:

 

  • The employer misses payroll for 60 days or otherwise fails to meet its contractual and legal obligations to its employees.

 

  • The employer becomes inactive, provided that this is verified by a labour inspection and provided further that the employee reports the same to the Ministry.

 

  • The employee files a labour complaint with the Ministry, which is referred to court, which in turn pronounces a final ruling in favor of the employee awarding the employee no less than two months’ salary, or indemnification for arbitrary or early termination, or other benefits denied by the employer, or end of service gratuity.

 

Resolution 766 addresses the conditions under which an employee may transfer from one employer to another. It was previously the rule (with limited exceptions) that an employee would have to complete 12 months of service with an employer before he would be eligible to transfer to another employer. This general provision has now been reduced to six months.

 

Other initiatives also have an impact on the labour market. A Federal Law enacted this year, Federal Decree-Law No. 2 of 2015, is designed to criminalize acts of discrimination and hatred. Although not expressly directed at the workplace, this would apparently criminalize discriminatory hiring practices, if they were based on distinctions of religion, creed, doctrine, sect, caste, race, color or ethnic origin.

 

As a final matter, the requirement for employer provided medical insurance coverage is being introduced in phases in the Emirate of Dubai. Coverage was imposed on employers with more than 1000 employees in 2014, and employers with between 100 and 1000 employees in 2015. All other employers will be subjected to the same requirement by the end of June 2016. ■

Do I need a DIFC will?

The Wills and Probate Registry in the Dubai International Financial Centre (the “Registry”) opened in late April of this year. It is now possible to register a will in Dubai, and to have a high degree of confidence that it will be enforced in accordance with its terms. Prior to the establishment of the Registry, it hadn’t been possible to be so confident that foreign wills would be enforced in the United Arab Emirates. There were concerns that Shari’a law would be applied to the estates of non-Muslims, particularly with respect to real property (land and buildings).

 

In summary therefore, the establishment of the Registry is a welcome initiative, and if you have assets in Dubai then you should almost certainly register a will with the Registry.

 

A few points to note right from the beginning: firstly, only non-Muslims may lodge their wills with the Registry. At the time of registering the will the testator (the person making the will) must confirm that they are not a Muslim, nor have ever been a Muslim. If this confirmation is later proved to be inaccurate then the will becomes void. Secondly, testators must be at least 22 years old. Thirdly, the will can only relate to assets in the Emirate of Dubai. Finally, the value of the Dubai assets must be balanced with the costs of using the Registry. There are a number of fees payable, some reasonably significant for many people. (The cost of registering a will is currently AED 10,000.)

 

Prior to the introduction of the Registry, a multitude of approaches were taken in respect to estate planning by Dubai residents. Many people, of various faiths, made no will at all. For those people who were aware of the applicable inheritance and intestacy rules, this was (and continues to be) a perfectly sensible choice. If your family structure is straightforward, and you understand and are comfortable with how your assets will be distributed where there is no will, then there is no reason to make one.

 

Historically, a variety of solutions were offered to those people who were not sure how their assets would be treated if there was no will, and who wished to create one. Some were told that it was necessary to register a Dubai will with a local notary. Others were told to make a will in their home country, have it translated into Arabic, and then registered locally. Others were told that it was sufficient to sign the will and have it witnessed by a staff member at their home country consulate in Dubai. In short, there was no consensus as to the most appropriate method of creating a will in the UAE, or of ensuring that it would be enforced in accordance with its terms.

 

The DIFC Registry seeks to resolve these concerns. Wills are reviewed by Registry staff prior to being accepted for registration. This review is anticipated to prevent the registration of wills with blatantly unacceptable terms (ie “. . . and finally, I leave the balance of my estate for the funding of international terrorism, and general crimes against the state”). More significantly, the review ensures that the will formalities are properly attended to (that the will is correctly witnessed, and so forth).

 

Once registered, the intention is that the terms of the will can be given effect to by the DIFC Court if necessary. Decisions of the DIFC Court must, as a matter of UAE law, be enforced by the Dubai Courts. It is then anticipated that other relevant Dubai governmental entities (such as the Economic Department in respect of assets such as company shares, or the Lands Department in respect of real property) would automatically abide by orders issued by the Dubai Courts (or even by the DIFC Court directly).

 

This process appears robust, but a small note of caution must be sounded. This is a new, and so far untested, system. It remains to be seen whether the relevant government departments will indeed recognize DIFC wills. We anticipate that this point will be resolved relatively soon, as there appears to be a significant number of individuals eager to make use of the Registry. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the system will not work as it should. On that basis, we welcome this beneficial addition to the legal landscape of the Emirate of Dubai. ■

 

* * * * *

 

Afridi & Angell can assist with the drafting and registration of DIFC wills. Please contact Stuart Walker if you wish to arrange an appointment to discuss any of the issues mentioned in this note.

DFSA imposes record fine on Deutsche Bank

At the end of March 2015 the Dubai Financial Services Authority (the “DFSA”) imposed its largest fine to date on Deutsche Bank AG Dubai (DIFC Branch) (“Deutsche Bank”). The size of the fine, US$10.5 million, is perhaps modest when compared to the recent GBP 126 million (US$189 million) fine handed to Bank of New York Mellon by the UK regulator, but it is significant in the context of the DIFC, particularly when you appreciate that Deutsche Bank is one of the larger and more important financial institutions in the Centre. The fine sends a clear signal that the DFSA is both independent, and unafraid of taking on sophisticated and well-resourced opponents.

 

The fine is also a reminder that a cover up can often be worse than the initial crime. Sources close to the DFSA have confirmed that the regulator is unlikely to have taken any formal action against Deutsche Bank if the bank had disclosed its initial breach in a timely manner. As is made very clear in the Decision Notice published on the DFSA website, the bulk of the fine is based upon the fact that Deutsche Bank not only failed to cooperate with the DFSA investigation, but also actively mislead the DFSA and provided false information to the regulator.

 

During a three-year period beginning in January 2011, Deutsche Bank operated in a manner that was contrary to certain provisions of the DFSA Rulebook. The bank’s private wealth management team in the DIFC was providing some advisory services to high-net-worth individuals without documenting these individuals as clients of the DIFC branch. In summary, Deutsche Bank is authorized by the DFSA to provide the financial services of, amongst others, arranging and advising. This was the case during the relevant period, and continues to date. Also, there is no suggestion that the advisory services provided were anything other than competent and professional. The investigation found that there was no evidence of financial detriment to the bank’s clients. Furthermore, this does not seem to be a case of rogue individuals inside the bank improperly chasing bonuses or commissions.

 

The only thing Deutsche Bank did wrong (at least initially) was to fail to document high-net-worth individuals as clients of the DIFC branch. The business model that the bank was meant to be following was for the individuals to be referred by the DIFC branch to other parts of the Deutsche Bank group (including but not limited to branches in Geneva and Luxembourg). This was being done (and the clients properly documented in those booking centres) but the DIFC private wealth management team continued to be in touch with the clients, and therefore provided the previously mentioned advisory services. If they had simply issued a DIFC client agreement, and complied with the standard DIFC KYC and AML procedures, all would have been well. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and the DFSA became aware that Deutsche Bank might have been uncompliant in these areas.

 

It was at this point that the senior management within Deutsche Bank made some startling errors of judgment. Amongst other things, false and misleading emails and letters were sent to the DFSA by the bank’s compliance team. Internal reports about possible breaches of the DFSA Rulebook were suppressed. Bank employees were encouraged to amend internal reports to remove references to regulatory breaches. The bank then refused to comply with a DFSA notice requiring the production of various documents. This then compelled the DFSA to seek a DIFC court order to enforce the notice.

 

The DFSA’s investigation into the breaches at Deutsche Bank took two-and-a-half years to resolve. The final six months were apparently spent negotiating the wording of the published Decision Notice. The bank obtained a 20 percent discount on the total amount of the fine by agreeing not to appeal or otherwise contest the fine. Unlike many of the other notices or undertakings published by the regulator in other matters, no specific names are mentioned in the Deutsche Bank notice. The blushes of the relevant people at Deutsche Bank have therefore been spared. Nonetheless, this must have been an embarrassing episode for the bank, and something of a success for the DFSA. ■

Free zones in the UAE – an overview

Strategically located between Europe, Africa and Asia, the United Arab Emirates (the “UAE”) has become a hub for trade and commerce throughout the world. In order to further encourage foreign investment, more than 20 free zones have been established across Dubai and focus on a wide range of business sectors, ranging from manufacturing to technology. Free zones offer a number of advantages to foreign businesses, including zero taxation, repatriation of profits and 100% foreign ownership. It is important to note that each free zone has its own bureaucracy along with unique regulations and costs. We are often asked by our clients which free zone they should incorporate in, and the following provides a brief overview of several free zones located in Dubai, and identifies a number of factors a potential investor may wish to consider when making their choice. The factors that drive the selection of a free zone tend to relate to the nature of the business to be carried on, cost of formation, administrative ease or difficulty, and location.

 

Established in 1985, Jebel Ali (“JAFZA”) is the oldest free zone in the UAE. JAFZA has one of the world’s largest shipping container ports, and is home to many industrial and trading companies utilizing the port. JAFZA recently revised its capital requirements for onshore companies and instead of requiring minimum capital deposits ranging from AED 500,000 – AED 1,000,000, JAFZA will determine the required capital on a case-by-case basis. Generally the minimum capital requirement is equal to the first year operating expenses as estimated by the JAFZA sales team. Office space is required for the formation of an onshore company and the lease or purchase thereof is often one of the largest expenses associated with the establishment of the company.

 

JAFZA is currently in the process of opening a new business complex named JAFZA One, which will provide companies seeking to incorporate in JAFZA with so-called “virtual office” options, which are far more affordable. JAFZA also allows for the formation of offshore companies, which have no physical presence in the UAE and accordingly do not lease space, but instead require the appointment of a Registered Agent. A Registered Agent provides a mailing address for service in the UAE and may also provide minimal administrative functions for the offshore company, and has no ownership or management interest. The minimum capital requirement for offshore companies is AED 1 and only one class of shares is permitted. Offshore companies can open current accounts with certain banks in the UAE, but cannot carry on active businesses and as such cannot sponsor UAE residency visas. JAFZA offshore companies are typically used by non-nationals as holding companies.

 

The Dubai International Financial Centre (the “DIFC”) is a financial services free zone based on common law principles. Established in Dubai’s financial district in 2004, the DIFC was created to attract international financial firms with the objective of elevating Dubai’s position as a global hub with access to the emerging markets of the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.

 

Formation, licensing and other fees are generally higher in the DIFC but it provides a level of regulation and international credibility not found in other free zones. The Dubai Financial Services Authority (the “DFSA”) regulates financial services companies to a standard comparable to western financial regulators, and all DIFC entities are subject to privacy and data protection regulations in line with international standards. The DIFC also offers its own judicial system based on common law, and apart from hearing matters specifically related to DIFC companies, the DIFC Courts can also hear civil or commercial actions from outside the DIFC (including outside the UAE) if the parties have contractually agreed. Given the relatively high cost and administrative effort of establishing a DIFC entity, this free zone is generally chosen for specific business purposes rather than simply achieving 100 percent foreign ownership. Dubai Silicon Oasis (“DSO”) is a free zone focusing on technology-based industries, with specific incentives aimed at entrepreneurs and start-ups. While being located outside of the city centre, DSO provides access to a strong network of technology-focused venture capitalists as well as providing incubation inducements. Formation and licensing fees are competitive at DSO and office space is required with a minimum annual rent of AED 85,000.

 

The Dubai Airport Free Zone (“DAFZA”) offers a strategic advantage to freight and logistics companies as it is attached to Terminal 2 of the Dubai International Airport. DAFZA offers a variety of options for space, ranging from part-time desks to insulated industrial units. Formation and licensing fees are slightly higher than other free zones, but the required minimum share capital is competitive at AED 1,000. DAFZA’s administration is relatively easy to deal with.

 

Dubai Multi-Commodities Centre (“DMCC”) was created in 2002 to enhance commodity trade flow through the emirate. Dubai is among the top three trading hubs in the world for gold, tea and diamonds. DMCC is popular in part because it is centrally located in a popular district of Dubai with relatively attractive office premises available. DMCC is an attractive free zone for numerous industries in addition to commodities traders, including recruitment, information technology and advertising. Formation, licensing and office rental fees are higher than average, owing to DMCC’s desirable location.

 

Dubai World Central (“DWC”) is one of the newest free zones in the UAE and formation and licensing fees are competitive. Located between JAFZA and Al Maktoum International Airport (removed from the conventional Dubai city limits), DWC focuses on the aviation industry, including related logistics, commercial and residential projects and light industry in general, although other business categories are welcome as well. It is too soon to tell whether DWC will be a popular free zone, as it is undergoing constant administrative change and unpredictability of service while it matures.

 

Free zones are not unique to Dubai, and other emirates including Abu Dhabi, Ras Al Khaimah and Sharjah offer attractive options for foreign businesses. These free zones offer some competitive advantages compared to Dubai’s free zones, such as lower licensing fees and office rental costs. It should be noted that setting up a company in these emirates can create logistical hurdles. A company registered in a free zone outside of Dubai cannot lease space, sponsor Dubai visas or operate in Dubai. When the primary purpose of incorporation is attaining a UAE residency visa, forming a company in these free zones may be the most expeditious option.

 

While the UAE’s free zones offer many attractive features for investors, it is important to be aware that free zone companies are not permitted to carry on business outside of the physical boundaries of the relevant free zone. For businesses that intend to service or supply the Dubai market, a free zone company may not be an appropriate vehicle depending on the nature of the business, so it is critical to consider this carefully prior to incorporation. ■

UAE Competition Law – All bark and no bite?

Federal Law No. 4 of 2012 on the regulation of competition (the “Competition Law”) introduced a regime for the regulation of anti-competitive behavior in the UAE which previously did not exist. If implemented strictly its effects would be very significant on UAE business. The Competition Law came into force on 23 February 2013 and introduces merger/acquisition clearance requirements, prohibitions against anti-competitive agreements and activities which constitute abuse of a dominant position, as well as some anti-competitive trade practices. The six month transition period allowing entities to become compliant with the Competition Law expired on 23 August 2013.

 

To date, the Competition Law has not been enforced in practice even moderately. One reason for this is that the Competition Law left key details to be set out in regulations that were to follow. The anticipated regulations have recently been issued but, disappointingly, they do not provide the clarity that was needed. Nonetheless, compliance with the Competition Law is (ostensibly) mandatory as it is a current, valid UAE law. With the recent issuance of the regulations it is foreseeable that this law could start to enjoy some level of enforcement. It is worth noting that, while the newly issued regulations do not provide a great deal of clarity on some key points under the Competition Law, they do set out a mechanism for making complaints against parties allegedly in breach of the Competition Law and the Ministry of Economy’s duty to investigate once a complaint is accepted.

 

Scope of Application

 

The Competition Law applies to all entities undertaking commercial activities in the UAE and to entities operating outside the UAE but whose activities affect competition inside the UAE.

 

Certain types of entities and industry sectors are expressly exempted. These include:

 

  • federal and local government entities and entities owned or controlled by federal or emirate governments;

 

  • small and medium size entities (not defined in the Competition Law or the regulations); and

 

  • entities operating in telecoms; financial services; pharmaceutical production and distribution; cultural activities; oil and gas; postal services including express delivery; electricity and water production and distribution; sewage and waste disposal; transportation and railway.

 

Prohibitions

 

The Competition Law requires that entities seek merger clearance from the UAE Ministry of Economy if they are contemplating a transaction that:

 

  • will result in the acquisition of a direct or indirect, total or partial interest or benefit in assets, equity, and/or obligations of another entity to which the Competition Law applies;

 

  • will create or promote a dominant position; and/or

 

  • may affect the level of competition in the relevant market.

In addition, the Competition Law prohibits entities from entering into agreements or arrangements (these terms should be construed very broadly) the aim, object or effect of which is to restrict competition. This includes, amongst other things, agreements or arrangements which directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices, grant exclusivity with respect to products or geography or other market division (other than through registered commercial agencies), and agreements or arrangements which involve collusion in bids and tenders. These restrictions would impact many distribution agreements in the UAE.

 

The Competition Law provides for potentially far-reaching penalties in the event of violation. These penalties include:

 

  • fines of between AED 500,000 and AED 5 million for entering into restrictive agreements or abusing market dominance; and

 

  • fines of between 2% to 5% of the infringing entity’s annual revenue derived from the sale of the relevant goods and services in the UAE for a failure to notify a transaction which is required to be notified pursuant to the Competition Law.

 

In addition, an entity violating the provisions of the Competition Law exposes itself to possible criminal sanctions.

 

Exemptions

 

The Competition Law allows for entities to seek an exemption to the Competition Law from the UAE Ministry of Economy. The procedure for seeking such an exemption is set out in the regulations to the Competition Law. It involves a written application seeking an exemption for a transaction. The entity seeking the exemption must provide copies of its constitutive documents and financial statements (for the last two financial years). In addition, it must submit an economic rationale for the transaction and its reasons for requesting the exemption. All documents submitted must be in Arabic, but may be accompanied by an English translation. The Ministry of Economy must respond to such a request within 90 days, but may extend this period by a further 45 days. In the event that no response is received within this time frame, approval is deemed to have been given.

 

Implications

 

Compliance with the Competition Law is now mandatory. Accordingly, businesses must consider the effect of the Competition law on their business. It remains to be seen how the UAE Ministry of Economy will interpret or enforce the Competition Law or the implementing regulations. As a minimum, the Competition Law and its potential effects need to be considered by any business operating commercially in the UAE or which intend to acquire a UAE business. ■