UAE Legislators on 9 December 2018 issued a Decision of Council of Ministers Number 57 of 2018 (the Decision) regarding the recent amendments in Federal Law Number 11 of 1992 concerning the UAE Civil Procedure Code (the Civil Law). The decision issued by the Cabinet is major regarding the advertising and notification procedures. The present article by Legal Consultants of Dubai shed lights on the notification procedures in Execution cases. Following are the notable amendments made under the Decision regarding execution orders:
Global FDSI Briefing
Welcome to our latest quarterly briefing on legal developments across our global network. I hope you find the articles insightful and thought provoking. Highlights this quarter include recent developments in Italian derivatives case law, an overview of the amendments made to Spain’s insolvency regulation and the UK’s FCA issuing first warning notices against individuals.
If you have any questions or would like further information please do not hesitate to contact me, or one of our global key contacts.
[Matthew Allen]
Matthew Allen
Introduction
The civil procedure in the UAE is governed by the Federal Law No 11 of 1992 (Civil Procedure Code) as amended, along with the Cabinet Decisions (including Cabinet Decisions 57 of 2018 and 33 of 2020), and resolutions, etc. issued from time to time. The Civil Procedure Code regulates the procedure for litigation in civil, commercial, administrative, labour and personal status matters. It also governs the procedure of appeals and execution of judgments.
The court system in UAE is hierarchal and operates both at the federal level and a local level.
Introduction
When a limited liability company goes into liquidation, its creditors are faced with considerable uncertainty, not least over their rights to securities on loans made to the defaulter. In such cases, a number of questions arise, including the following:
Background
Under Dutch law, the directors of a (private) company can be held personally liable by the trustee for the bankruptcy deficit. Liability can arise when the directors have manifestly performed their management duties improperly and if it is reasonable to assume that bankruptcy was declared as a result. Section 2:248(4) of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) contains a list of grounds for reducing the amount of the directors’ liability.
Decision
The High Court has recently held that the appointment of administrators by a sole director of a company with unamended Model Articles was valid.
Background
The document allegedly appointing the administrators of the company was a standard set of board minutes, reportedly chaired by a man and recording that a quorum was present. In fact, there was no meeting, and the decision was taken alone by the sole female director.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.
At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.
Background
In brief
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company's creditors.
Contents
In brief
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company's creditors.
Contents
In In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Case No. 20-2941) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2020), a federal district court denied in part a motion to dismiss claims brought by the Nine West liquidating trustee against former directors (the "Defendants") of The Jones Group, Inc. (the "Company"), Nine West's predecessor, for, among other things, (i) breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. The litigation arises from the 2014 LBO of the Company by a private equity sponsor ("Buyer").