Global—On 26 October 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a ruling that may impact sovereign debt restructurings, upheld a lower court order enjoining Argentina from making payments on restructured defaulted debt without making comparable payments to bondholders who did not participate in the restructuring.

This decision is the latest development in the bitterly disputed enforcement case of a $932 million Swiss arbitration award confirmed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in favor of a Dutch judgment creditor, Sonera Holding B.V. (“Sonera”), against a Turkish judgment debtor, Cukurova Holding A. (“Cukurova”).

As many Japanese contractors are exposed to the financial crisis in Dubai, this month our Construction Disputes Avoidance Newsletter focuses on an important recent development concerning Dubai World. At the same time as announcing that the Nakheel sukuk due for repayment on 14 December would be repaid in full, the Dubai government stated that it would pass a reorganisation law for the Dubai World group in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations. The details of that new law have now been released in the form of Dubai Decree No.

Dubai's announcement on 25 November 2009 that it would seek a standstill (the "Standstill Announcement") on the debt of Dubai World, a Government of Dubai holding company, whose principal business activities include the master developers Nakheel and Limitless, port operator DP World, and investment house Istithmar, caused a considerable impact across world markets and widespread comment amongst the world media.

Following the Standstill Announcement a number of significant events and further announcements have taken place, principal amongst these have been:

On Monday 14 December 2009 the Dubai Financial Support Fund received a further US$10bn from the Abu Dhabi Government to be used to satisfy a series of upcoming obligations of Dubai World and its subsidiaries (“DWG”). The monies were used in part to pay off the Nakheel sukuk which matured on the same day. The markets in the region (and elsewhere) reacted positively with significant gains and Dubai's CDS spreads narrowed. That same afternoon the Dubai Government announced a new law (Decree No. 57). Sheikh Ahmad Bin Saeed Al Maktoum, Chairman of the Dubai Supreme Fiscal Committee, said:

At the same time as announcing that the Nakheel sukuk due for repayment on 14 December would be repaid in full, the Dubai government stated that it would pass a reorganisation law for the Dubai World group in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations. The details of that new law have now been released in the form of Dubai Decree No. 57 for 2009 (the Decree).

The Decree is significant in two respects:

On 13 December 2009, the Dubai Government issued Decree No. 57 for 2009, in response to the widely publicized concerns over Dubai World’s debt position. The decree established a tribunal seated within the Dubai International Financial Centre, tasked with hearing and deciding claims against Dubai World, its subsidiaries and any person related to the settlement of the financial obligations of those organizations (Dubai World). The Decree also created an entirely new insolvency law which will be exclusively applicable to Dubai World.

Why was Decree No. 57 issued?

On 14 December 2009, the same day on which Nakheel, a Dubai World subsidiary, was due to make payment under its 2009 sukuk, the Government of Dubai announced that it had received support from the Government of Abu Dhabi and the UAE Central Bank and would pay the US$4.1 billion due. It also announced that it had secured funding of an additional US$5.9 billion to be used to meet “interest expenses and working capital [of Dubai World] through April 30, 2010 – conditioned on the company being successful in negotiating a standstill”.

There are some strict rules which apply when an individual is made bankrupt. Some of them were brought to the fore recently in the case of Floyd Foster v Davenport Lyons (A Firm) in the Chancery Division EWHC 275 (Ch).

The main cardinal rules are:

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.