In a noteworthy first decision, the Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Court and DIFC Court (JT), established to decide conflicts of jurisdiction between the two courts, has ruled on 27 January 2017 that Daman Real Capital Partners Company LLC v. Oger Dubai LLC case should be remitted for trial by the Dubai Court, and that the DIFC Court should cease from entertaining the case entirely.

On 13 December 2009, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of UAE, Ruler of Dubai, issued Decree No. 57 for 2009 Establishing a Tribunal to Decide Disputes Related to the Settlement of the Financial Position of Dubai World and its Subsidiaries (Decree No. 57). The text of Decree No. 57 is available at http://www.difccourts.ae.

Why Issue Decree No. 57?

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”.

Wrongful trading laws have been suspended. But other relevant laws remain unchanged. Critically directors remain subject to the creditors’ interest duty. Read our article which examines the current position and highlights other key issues to be kept firmly in mind by directors and those advising them in these challenging times.

A recent English case has considered for the first time whether and if so to what extent the general duties of a director survive a company’s entry into an insolvency process.

A winding up petition is a legal document that can be served by a company’s creditors when they are owed money by the company. If the debt amounts to £750 or more, then a creditor has the right to go to court and ask for a winding up petition to be issued, although courts view this remedy as something that should be reserved for when a company is genuinely believed to be insolvent, and not simply used as a means of debt collection.

Seafood Shack Ltd v Alan Darlow [2019] EWHC 1567 (Ch)

A lease of restaurant premises was granted to a company that did not exist; there was no legal basis for correcting the lease, and the similarly-named company claiming rights was held to have none.

The Directors of a Company that cannot pay its debts can choose to put the Company into voluntary liquidation. Indeed Directors have statutory responsibilities not to permit a Company to trade insolvently. If they allow the Company to trade insolvently they can become personally liable for the debts.

A creditor can also put a company debtor into compulsory liquidation. The amount owed must be not less than £750 and the creditor must either have an admission that the debt is owed, or a Court judgment.

On 1 November 2012, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the Special Administrators (“SAs”) of MF Global UK Ltd (“MFGUK”), in relation to a claim by MF Global Inc (“MFGI”) arising from certain repo-to-maturity transactions (the “RTM Application”). These transactions concerned the repo of European debt securities by MFGI to MFGUK, which were governed by a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (“GMRA”).