The duties and obligations of directors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are drawn from various legislative sources; there is no consolidated legislative framework dealing with the duties and obligations of directors under UAE Law. Squire Patton Boggs’ Dubai office have published a summary of the principal duties and liabilities of a director in the  UAE, both generally and in the event of insolvency.

The duties and obligations of directors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are drawn from various legislative sources, there is no consolidated legislative framework dealing with the duties and obligations of directors under UAE Law. Note that under UAE law the terms “manager” and “director” are used interchangeably. As such, any reference in this memorandum to the foregoing terms should be construed as one and the same, where possible we have used the generic term “director” to avoid potential confusion.

Applicable Law 

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) appears to be finally in the process of issuing a long-awaited new federal insolvency law. Described by some as a game-changer, the government announced in July that its Cabinet has approved a draft of the new law replacing the old (and largely unused) insolvency regime. The highly anticipated law is now pending the approval and ratification of the Federal National Council and Supreme Council before it receives final approval by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the UAE President.

Sale at an undervalue; time for presenting a petition; implied term avoids manifest injustice; complying with time limits; order for sale threshold; Wragge & Co's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Sale at an undervalue

In Butterfield Bank (UK) Ltd v Philip and others, the bank sought summary judgment against four guarantors of a bank facility. It was alleged that the bank had sold a property at a £500,000 undervalue.

Notice of assignment

Notice of assignment can be given by either the assignee or assignor under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

This was the High Court's finding in Smith v 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd and another. Smith was notified by her credit card company that her credit card debt had been assigned to 1st Credit. 1st Credit wrote to Smith shortly afterwards confirming the assignment and advising how payment could be made. Smith failed to pay and was made bankrupt by 1st Credit which subsequently repossessed and sold Smith's property.

The court will unravel a transaction where it appears to have been entered into to place assets beyond the reach of creditors.

This was the case in Ambrose sub nom Garwood v Amborse & Ambrose, where the trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Ambrose applied for declaratory relief and an order for the possession and sale of Mr & Mrs Ambrose's property.

In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.

Where there is no evidence of lack of authority in placing orders which have not been paid, the court refused to allow an injunction to restrain a winding-up petition.

In the matter of A company (2012) (the company), a creditor had issued a statutory demand against it in relation to invoices for advertising placed with it by the company's sales and marketing manager (M) that were unpaid. The company argued that those orders had been placed without its authority and M admitted that she had exceeded her authority in so placing them.

 Valuation evidence

The court has reaffirmed that comparable sales evidence is the best evidence when determining the retrospective valuation of a property.

The case of White v Davenham Trust Ltd, has reaffirmed that a creditor can choose its own method of enforcing a debt which has been guaranteed even where it might hold security for that debt.