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 Texas Supreme Court, on June 20, 2014, issued its highly  anticipated opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 500 (Tex.  2014). Ritchie involved a claim by a minority shareholder in a  closely held corporation under the Texas receivership statute,  seeking to force the majority shareholders to buy-out the minority  shareholder’s interest in the corporation.

In December 2015, as part of its National Innovation and Science Agenda, the Federal Government announced a proposal to introduce a ‘safe harbour’ for directors from personal liability for insolvent trading.

General corporate

ASIC reports on corporate insolvencies 2012–2013

At the end of April 2015 the National Council of  the Slovak Republic adopted Act No. 87/2015  Coll., which amends and supplements Act No. 513/1991 Coll. Commercial Code, as amended, and also amends and supplements certain acts (the Amendment). The Amendment will significantly affect the content of the corporate law in Slovakia.

The Government has recently published a discussion paper, ‘Transparency & Trust: Enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership and increasing trust in UK business’, inviting feed-back on a number of proposals concerning the transparency of company ownership and control, enforcement of directors’ duties and compensation of creditors.  Among other things, the Government proposes to:  

The directors of the failed courier company City Link had a good reason to celebrate this weekend after the dismissal of criminal charges brought against them for failing to notify the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (“BIS”) of their intention to make City Link’s circa 2,500 employees redundant last Christmas.

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.

Three former directors of failed UK parcel delivery company City Link have recently been delivered the bad news that they will face criminal charges over redundancies made during the Christmas period last year.  They have been charged with failure to notify the Secretary of State of the proposed redundancy of City Link’s employees as required under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.  Notification is normally given to the Government by submitting an HR1 form to the Insolvency Service

As a consequence of the current situation of economic crisis and the sudden braking in construction, we observe that every day we are finding ourselves with fresh news of negotiations with financial institutions, and applications for declarations of bankruptcy from creditors.