Tag: Corporate and Commercial

BVI companies – economic substance law

British Virgin Islands (BVI) companies are commonly used in the UAE by investors to hold real estate properties and/or shares in UAE companies. Investors need to be aware of a recently enacted BVI law, the Economic Substance (Companies and Limited Partnerships) Act, 2018 (the Law), which introduces economic substance requirements in the BVI.

 

In order to avoid being identified/blacklisted as a non-cooperative jurisdiction for tax purposes by the European Union’s Code of Conduct Group (a group responsible for EU’s taxation policy), many offshore jurisdictions such as the BVI, the Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands, etc., have introduced legislation requiring entities established in such jurisdictions to demonstrate economic substance in their respective jurisdictions.

 

The Law came into force on 1 January 2019. Existing legal entities (companies or limited partnerships) in the BVI are required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Law by 30 June 2019.

 

Applicability: Companies and Limited Partnerships

 

The Law applies to all companies (registered in the BVI under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004) and limited partnerships (registered in the BVI under the Limited Partnership Act, 2017), except “non-resident companies”, “non-resident limited partnerships” and limited partnerships which do not have a legal personality.

 

A “non-resident company” or a “non-resident limited partnership” is a company/limited partnership which is resident for tax purposes in a jurisdiction outside the BVI (such a jurisdiction should not be on Annex 1 to the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes).

 

The Law is applicable to all companies and limited partnerships unless such companies and limited partnerships are considered as tax residents of other jurisdictions.

 

Relevant Activities

 

A legal entity is required to demonstrate economic substance in the BVI if it is carrying on any of the following activities (called “relevant activities”): (a) banking business; (b) insurance business; (c) fund management business; (d) finance and leasing business; (e) headquarters business; (f) shipping business; (g) holding business; (h) intellectual property business; (i) distribution and service centre business. These activities are defined in detail under the Law.

 

Requirements under the Law

 

The Law requires a legal entity carrying a relevant activity during any financial period to comply with the economic substance requirements in relation to that activity. A legal entity is considered to have complied with the economic substance requirements if:

 

a) the relevant activity is directed and managed in the BVI;

b) there are adequate number of qualified employees in the BVI;

c) there is adequate expenditure incurred in the BVI;

d) there are physical offices or premises in the BVI;

e) in case the relevant activity is intellectual property business and requires the use of specific equipment, that equipment is located in the BVI; and

f) it conducts core income-generating activity.

 

Holding Business

 

A BVI company which is carrying on the business of an equity/share holding company and earns dividends and capital gains, and carries on no other relevant activity is required to comply with a slightly relaxed level of economic substance requirements. Such a BVI company is considered to have adequate substance if it (a) complies with statutory obligations under the BVI companies law; and (b) has adequate employees and premises for holding and/or managing equitable interests or shares.

 

Requirement to Provide Information

 

A legal entity shall provide (in addition to the reporting requirements under other BVI laws) any information reasonable required by the competent authority to assess if such a legal entity has complied with the requirements under the Law.

 

Penalties

 

If the competent authority has determined that a legal entity has not complied with the economic substance requirements as per the Law, the competent authority shall issue a notice to the legal entity and impose a penalty (ranging between USD 5,000 to USD 50,000). A notice issued by the competent authority shall include its findings and steps required to be taken by the said legal entity to ensure compliance under the Law.

 

If the legal entity fails to comply with the first notice, the competent authority shall issue a second notice and impose additional penalty on the legal entity (ranging between USD 10,000 to USD 400,000).

 

If the legal entity fails to comply with the second notice, the competent authority may submit a report to the Financial Service Commission in BVI recommending striking the said legal entity off the Register of Companies or the Register of Limited Partnerships (as applicable).

 

A legal entity who has received a notice from the competent authority has a right to appeal to the BVI courts against the competent authority’s determination/findings (relating to compliance with the economic substance requirements) and amount of penalty imposed.

 

Next Steps

 

All legal entities are required to assess and determine if they are in compliance with the Law and if not, what steps are required to be taken to ensure compliance. ■

Directors’ duties in DIFC

Introduction 

 

On 12 November 2018, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) introduced a suite of new legislation concerning companies operating in or from the DIFC. This consists of DIFC Law 5 of 2018 (the Companies Law), DIFC Law 7 of 2018, the Companies Regulations and the Operating Regulations.

 

The Companies Law has amplified the duties of directors of DIFC companies by enacting a set of directors’ duties, largely following the standard contained in the UK Companies Act 2006.

 

This inBrief briefly outlines the particular duties that directors of bodies corporate in the DIFC should be aware of.

 

Directors’ Duties

 

Directors’ duties are owed to the company. This means that it will in the first instance be the company, rather than the shareholders, that are entitled to enforce them.

 

Companies are permitted to go further than the statutory duties provided by placing more onerous requirements on their directors in their articles of association, or by virtue of a director’s terms of appointment.

 

The Companies Law sets out the following directors’ duties (though there may also be additional duties that are relevant to a director, for example, a duty to prepare and deliver accounts) although directors of public limited companies or financial services providers licensed by the Dubai Financial Services Authority may be subject to additional duties:

 

• duty to act within powers: directors are confined to exercising their powers in accordance with the company’s articles of association and for the purposes for which those powers have been conferred;

 

• duty to promote the success of the company: directors must act in the manner they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole. In doing so, directors must consider, amongst others, the interests of the company’s employees, likely consequences of any decision in the long run and the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment;

 

• duty to exercise independent judgement: directors must generally exercise their powers independently. As an example, directors may not agree to vote at a board meeting in a certain way if instructed by a third party (i.e. shareholder);

 

• duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence: a director must act as a reasonably diligent person would at all times. A director must display the general knowledge, skill and experience to carry out the functions that are required by the director. An individual should not take on a directorship unless they are appropriately qualified or experienced to be able to perform the functions that they may reasonably be expected to carry out;

 

• duty to avoid conflicts of interest: directors must avoid scenarios in which they have or can have a direct or indirect interest that conflicts with, or may conflict with the company’s interest;

 

• duty not to accept benefits from third parties: directors must not accept any benefit from a third party which is conferred because of him being in the position as a director of the company, or for him doing (or not doing) anything in his position as director, unless the acceptance of such benefit cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest. “Benefit” has not been defined in the Companies Law, but it is likely that a court considering the matter would interpret this term to have its ordinary meaning;

 

• duty to declare interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement: directors must declare, before entering into the relevant transaction or arrangement, to the other directors the nature and extent of any interest (direct or indirect) in a proposed transaction or arrangement with the company. As the legislation provides for indirect interest, the director need not be a party to the transaction for the duty to apply and directors should apply their mind to potential parties who may be regarded as connected persons;

 

• duty to declare interest in existing transaction or arrangement: directors must declare, as soon as practicable after the director became aware of the circumstances, the nature and extent of any interest (direct or indirect) in a transaction or arrangement with the company or by a subsidiary which, to a material extent, conflicts or may conflict with the interests of the company.

 

Consequences of breach

 

The consequences for directors breaching their statutory duties can be severe and may include personal civil liability, fines or payment of damages to the company. A breach of duty may also be grounds for disqualification from the position as a director.

 

Conclusion

 

Directors should familiarize themselves with the statutory duties outlined in the Companies Law (and other relevant legislation) before accepting a position as a director of a DIFC company. Individuals should assess whether they have the necessary qualifications, experience, knowledge and capabilities to perform the tasks which may be expected of the director. Directors or potential directors who are uncertain of what may be expected of them in their role as directors should seek legal advice. ■

Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Regulations (DIFC)

The DIFC Authority has issued the Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) Regulations, which took effect on 12 November 2018 (the Regulations).

 

The Regulations require entities currently registered with, or to be registered with, the DIFC Authority to keep and maintain a UBO Register and (if applicable) a Register of Nominee Directors, setting out the details of the UBO and Nominee Directors respectively.

 

In this inBrief, we highlight the key items that DIFC entities need to be aware of in creating and maintaining their UBO Register and Register of Nominee Directors and in issuing the associated notifications to the DIFC Registrar of Companies.

 

Who are the Nominee Director and the UBO?

 

For the purposes of the Regulations, a Nominee Director is a director who is obligated to act in accordance with the directions and instructions of another person.

 

An ultimate beneficial owner is a natural person who:

 

– in relation to a DIFC company, owns or controls directly or indirectly:

o 25% of shares, ownership interests or voting rights in the DIFC entity; or

o has the right to appoint or remove the majority of the directors of the DIFC entity.

 

– in relation to a DIFC partnership, exercises significant control over the activities of the partnership;

 

– in relation to a DIFC foundation, exercises significant control over the council of the foundation; and

 

– in relation to a DIFC non-profit incorporated organisation, exercises significant control over the board.

 

If, after applying the foregoing rules, no natural person can be identified as an ultimate beneficial owner of the DIFC entity, anyone who exercises significant control over the DIFC entity (or its governing body) shall be required to be notified as an ultimate beneficial owner of the DIFC entity. If there is no such person, then members of the governing body of the DIFC entity shall be required to be notified as ultimate beneficial owners of the DIFC entity.

 

Obligation of DIFC entities

 

The obligations of the DIFC entities vary slightly depending on when they were registered with the DIFC Authority.

 

– DIFC entities registered prior to 12 November 2018 were required to establish a UBO Register and Register of Nominee Directors, and notify the details of the Nominee Directors and the ultimate beneficial owner to the DIFC Authority through the DIFC portal by 12 February 2019 (the DIFC Authority granted an additional penalty free grace period of 30 days, meaning that the final deadline for compliance was 14 March 2019).

 

– DIFC entities registered after 12 November 2018 were also required to comply with the deadline of 14 March 2019 to establish a UBO Register. For the Register of Nominee Directors, the deadline is 30 days of the later of the registration date of the DIFC entity or the Nominee Director becoming a director of the DIFC entity.

 

– Entities in the process of being registered with the DIFC Authority are required to establish a UBO Register 30 days following the date of registration with the DIFC Authority.

 

The latter two categories of entities need not notify the DIFC Authority of the UBO details, as they are deemed to have provided such details as part of the registration process.

 

Changes to the UBO Register

 

DIFC entities must record any changes to the UBO Register and Register of Nominee Directors, and notify the DIFC Authority of the same through the DIFC Portal, within 30 days of becoming aware of such change.

 

Penalties

 

Failing to keep and maintain the UBO Register and the Register of Nominee Directors will result in a fine of USD 25,000. If the DIFC entity fails to comply with any requirement, or notice issued, under the Regulations, the DIFC Registrar may strike the DIFC entity off the Public Register.

 

Exempt Entities

 

The Regulations set out DIFC entities that are exempt from keeping and maintaining a UBO Register and Register of Nominee Directors. These are DIFC entities that:

 

– have their securities listed or traded on an exchange recognised by the DIFC Authority;

 

– or regulated by the DFSA or any other financial services regulator recognised by the DIFC Authority;

 

– constitute a company, foundation or partnership which the DIFC Authority recognises as being subject to equivalent international standards with adequate transparency of ownership information in its home jurisdiction;

 

– are a non-profit incorporated organisation which does not, as its primary function, engage in raising or disbursing funds for charitable, religious, cultural, educational, social, fraternal or similar purposes;

 

– are wholly owned by a government or governmental agency of the UAE and any other jurisdiction which the DIFC Authority may determine from time to time; or

 

– are established under UAE law to perform governmental functions.

 

DIFC entities that fall under one of the abovementioned categories will be required to request a formal exemption.

 

Partially Exempt DIFC Entities

 

Additionally, the Regulations set out the requirements for a partially exempt DIFC entity, which is a DIFC entity that is at least 25% owned by a corporate person that falls under one of the abovementioned categories (Exempt Owner). Such DIFC entity is subject to the obligations set out in Section 4, however with respect to the Exempt Owner, instead of tracing the ownership details of the Exempt Owner, the details of the Exempt Owner are inserted in the UBO Register instead. ■

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. ■

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.■

ADGM announces tech start-up licensing regime

The Abu Dhabi Global Market (the ADGM) recently announced the launch of a commercial license specifically catered towards tech start-ups that allows entrepreneurs to obtain an operational license in the ADGM and access to a Professional Services Support Program aimed at allowing entrepreneurs entry to a community of businesses, financial services and professional advisors.

 

The license is available to entrepreneurs of all nationalities floating technology driven start-ups with scalable innovative business concepts that can be deployed in the UAE and contribute to the development of the local economy. Demonstrable evidence of the progress of such technology (such as a prototype or market traction) will be required along with a clearly defined business plan with relevant forecasts.

 

Registering under the license offers the following benefits:

 

• a fully operational commercial license for two years;

 

• annual fee of USD700 (as opposed to the USD10,300 initial registration fee and USD8,100 annual renewal fee ordinarily  applicable);

 

• registration with a virtual office address (business centre or agent/advisor registered address) or physical working space  (micro-office);

 

• access to ADGM’s Professional Services Support Program; and

 

• the option to obtain up to four employee visas.

 

The registration process remains the same as the current online procedure used for ordinary commercial licenses (involving submission of an application form and business plan, initial screening and pre-approval, final approval and issuance of license after registration and incorporation). After two years, if the start-up is able to show progress such as revenue or a sufficient level of investments, it will either be converted to a traditional operational entity on normal license terms or a holding company.

 

The Professional Services Support Program is a unique partnership between the ADGM and leading local and international advisers, established to help entrepreneurs enhance the scalability of their ventures, build business skills and provide guidance in the fields of accounting, compliance, finance, legal and VAT.

 

These developments come on the back of a number of initiatives by the ADGM to address set-up costs, access to funding and business support for start-ups (such as the FinTech RegLab programme). They are also in line with the UAE’s National Innovation Strategy to make the UAE a more attractive base for new businesses and ultimately promote economic diversification, foster growth and stimulate the region’s innovation environment. ■

Cautious optimism on 100 per cent foreign ownership

Recent media reports have suggested that 100 per cent foreign ownership of companies in the UAE will now be permitted. The reports are based on a government press release regarding a UAE Federal Cabinet (Cabinet) meeting held on 20 May 2018.

 

The press release states that the Cabinet announced changes in the system of foreign ownership in the UAE allowing global investors to own 100 per cent of companies by the end of the current year. While this is welcome news, some media reports and expert analysis have jumped the gun giving the impression that 100 per cent foreign ownership is a done deal. This news is better understood as a statement of intent and is not confirmation that the relevant legislation is already in place.

 

Companies incorporated in the UAE require a minimum of 51 per cent UAE ownership. This long-standing rule is set out in Article 10 of Federal Law 2 of 2015 on Commercial Companies, as amended (the Companies Law). The previous Companies Law (Federal Law 8 of 1984) contained a similar restriction. As an exception to this rule, 100 per cent foreign ownership is permitted in free zones.

 

An amendment to Article 10 of the Companies Law adopted in September of 2017 (pursuant to Federal Decree-Law 18 of 2017) stipulates that the Cabinet may adopt resolutions permitting greater than 49 per cent foreign ownership. Under the revised Article 10, the Cabinet has discretion to determine what types of companies may be majority or wholly owned by foreigners.

 

The idea of giving the Cabinet the power to designate companies in certain sectors as being eligible for 100 per cent foreign ownership is not new. For example, in September of 2011, following announcements by the Ministry of Economy regarding a series of forthcoming new laws, media reports circulated that a new foreign investment law giving the Cabinet the power to allow 100 per cent foreign ownership of certain companies was being drafted.

 

As of this time, no foreign investment law has been enacted. Instead, the mechanism for permitting the Cabinet to designate the sectors eligible for majority and 100 per cent foreign ownership has been inserted into the Companies Law.

 

While 100 per cent foreign ownership would be a welcome development, it is not yet a reality. Some reports may give the impression that a Cabinet Resolution that would allow implementation of 100 per cent foreign ownership is already in place. Such reports are misleading. A committee is currently studying the issue with a view to making recommendations but the Cabinet has not yet issued any resolutions stipulating that specific types of companies are eligible for 100 per cent foreign ownership. Until this happens, 100 per cent foreign ownership will be a goal rather than a reality.

 

Reports about new legislation in the UAE should always be treated with caution until the actual legislation is published in the Official Gazette. In some cases, rumored legislation never materialises. In other cases it takes much longer than predicted. For example, there were many reports going back well over a decade that the new Companies Law was imminent before it was finally promulgated in 2015. In the current case, the government’s press release indicates that the Cabinet has set a goal of implementing 100 per cent foreign ownership by the end of the year. Whether or not this goal will be achieved remains to be seen.

 

Permitting 100 per cent foreign ownership in certain sectors would be a major development. Not only have the relevant sectors not yet been identified, if and when such sectors are identified the government may get resistance from existing companies operating in these sectors. Industry resistance is a potential obstacle to implementation. The relevant business sectors must be identified and then the Cabinet must agree with the recommendations and adopt a resolution.

 

The recent news is cause for optimism that 100 per cent foreign ownership will eventually be implemented in certain sectors but 100 per cent foreign ownership is not yet a reality. ■

DIFC special purpose companies and exempt activities: a special purpose

The special purpose company (SPC) regime in the Dubai International Financial Centre (the DIFC) offers a vehicle that is convenient for use in many types of corporate finance transactions. A DIFC SPC is relatively quick and easy to establish and inexpensive to maintain on an ongoing basis as compared to a DIFC company limited by shares.

 

All SPCs are governed by and subject to the DIFC Special Purpose Company Regulations (the SPCoR).  Importantly, the SPCoR stipulates that an SPC can only be used for an “Exempt Activity”. In summary, the SPCoR requires that an SPC be used only where some form of financing, debt or capital markets transaction is contemplated.

 

Those that seek to use an SPC in their corporate structures must take this limitation into account. The DIFC Registrar of Companies is granted the right to review the status of a DIFC SPC, and to revoke the privileges and exemptions granted to an SPC by the SPCoR, should an SPC undertake any activity which is not an Exempt Activity. Specifically, this means that an SPC should not be used merely as a holding company, where there is no genuine financing element that would qualify as an Exempt Activity under the SPCoR. We are aware that the DIFC authorities have recently stepped up enforcement activity in an effort to ensure that all SPCs are adhering to the restrictions set forth in the SPCoR in letter and spirit.  This approach could affect the viability of using an SPC as a mere holding vehicle in new structures, and could also affect existing structures if the DIFC authorities choose to examine the stated versus actual activities of existing SPCs. ■

New ministerial decision brings clarity to private joint stock companies

The private joint stock company is one of the forms of company contemplated by UAE Federal Law No. 2 of 2015 concerning commercial companies (the Companies Law). The UAE Federal Ministry of Economy has now promulgated Ministerial Decision No. 539 of 2017 (the Ministerial Decision) which was issued on 29 May 2017 and is now in force, and expressly abrogates Ministerial Decision No. 370 of 2009 on the Register of Shares of Private Joint Stock Companies (and all other contradictory decisions and circulars). The Ministerial Decision brings much awaited clarity on the process for setting up and operating a private joint stock company (a PJSC).

 

 

Unlike the provisions in the Companies Law concerning public joint stock companies, which are relatively more detailed, the provisions relating to PJSCs are general in nature and provide little by way of detailed guidance. Notably, article 265 of the Companies Law provides that save for those concerning public subscription, all provisions concerning public joint stock companies shall apply to PJSCs. It will be of interest to see how the authorities and the courts will reconcile article 265 with the detailed guidance contained in the Ministerial Decision, much of which addresses the same content as the relevant provisions of the Companies Law.
The Ministerial Decision is extensive and brings welcome clarity to many issues, and anyone owning, managing, acting as director of, or advising a PJSC should read it in full.  For example, it deals with the following:
Board of directors: guidance as to the process and preconditions for an appointment to the board of a PJSC. For example, any person wishing to be appointed to the board of a PJSC must submit an acknowledgment that he shall abide by the Companies Law, any supplementary legislation thereto and the provisions of the company’s memorandum and articles of association.  It also deals with conflicts of interests, related party transactions and director remuneration, and clear permission for participation in meetings by electronic means (previously subject to approval of the “Authority” per article 156 of the Companies Law),  among other things.
Capital: guidance on issued versus authorized share capital, share premiums, treasury shares and pre-emptive rights of shareholders and various exceptions to such rights.
Employee share schemes: article 226 of the Companies Law contemplated the issuance of guidance to detail the methods by which a company could implement an employee share scheme. This guidance is contained in the Ministerial Decision (see articles 45 through 47 of the Ministerial Decision). Notably, directors are not permitted to participate in such a scheme and any shares held for the purposes of an award to employees shall not carry any right to vote or otherwise receive distributions from the company, until such time as such shares are transferred to an employee under the terms of the company’s share scheme.
The Ministerial Decision may be a sign of further detail to come.  Guidance on issues concerning the Companies Law is anticipated and will assist in further developing the corporate governance landscape in the United Arab Emirates. As an example, we expect further guidance on the form of memorandum and articles of association to be used for PJSCs (as alluded to in article 3 of the Ministerial Decision). In addition, article 5 of the Companies Law contemplates the issuance of guidance concerning the ability of a free zone entity to conduct business in the United Arab Emirates, but outside the relevant free zone. All guidance that helps clarify issues concerning the Companies Law will be welcomed. ■