There is a wide range of precautionary attachment options in the UAE which creditors in the region should take into account.

The new Bankruptcy Law (Federal Law Number 9 of 2016) is seen as a strategically improved law in comparison with previous insolvency laws. Having said that the Bankruptcy Law so far covers the following:

i. Permits organizations in money related issues and provides the chance to rearrange their issues so as to stay suitable;

ii. Companies failing to stay financially viable, offers them a chance to seek liquidation;

Insolvency Law No. 9 of 2019 enters into force from January 2020, which is the year of economic and social betting on development and aspiration for a happier and more stable country.

What is the role of the insolvency law in this context?

In March of 2019, an Emirati limited liability company (the “LLC”) had restructured its debts under the Bankruptcy Law; Federal Decree-Law No. 9 of 2016 which was first published in the Official Gazette on 29 September 2016 and came into force on 29 December 2016.

Under Chapter 4 of the Bankruptcy Law the Bankruptcy Circuit of the Abu Dhabi Primary Court oversaw the restructuring of the LLC under which had been operating in the contracting industry since 2008 and had debts exceeding eighteen times its paid-up capital.

The UAE Government recently passed legislation that substantially simplifies the procedure for obtaining a payment order.

Payment orders may offer an efficient method to obtain ex parte judgement against a debtor. They are frequently used when claiming amounts arising from bounced checks or other commercial instruments.

A statutory demand is a formal demand for payment of a debt made by a creditor to a debtor. It may be used as the basis for an application for a petition to wind up a Cayman company.

Service and content of Statutory Demand

The Companies Winding up Rules 2008 (as amended) provide guidance as to the form and content of a statutory demand as well as the mode of service within the Cayman Islands.

A statutory demand should be in the format of CWR Form 1 and must be signed by:

When a corporate borrower faces financial difficulties, there are a variety of enforcement, restructuring and insolvency options available to creditors. From a creditor’s perspective, the choice of procedure will depend on whether the borrower has granted security. If security has been granted over the shares or the assets and undertakings of a Cayman Islands incorporated company pursuant to a Cayman Islands law governed security document, the most appropriate enforcement choice for any secured creditor may be receivership.

The facts behind Mr. Justice Lewison’s recent judgment in Stanford (STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch)) have no direct connection with either the British Virgin or Cayman Islands but lawyers there do have particular reason to note the more general principles around the seemingly vexed but important issue of COMI in the context of multi-jurisdictional insolvency.

In a recent decision,1 Judge Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court decision and refused to recognize under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code either as “foreign main proceedings” or as “foreign nonmain proceedings” the well-publicized liquidations brought in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands by two Bear Stearns hedge funds (the “Funds”).

Funds' assets in the U.S. has been denied by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. See 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 2949, *26 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30 , 2007). The Funds were being liquidated in the Cayman Islands, but the bankruptcy court held that they were not eligible for Chapter 15 relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the "Code") because the liquidations were not pending in a country where the Funds had their "center of main interests" or an "establishment" for the conduct of business.