The proposed changes to the Saudi Arabian bankruptcy regime will provide the judiciary the right to obligate creditors to accept a settlement proposed by the debtor (the “new Law”).

The Ministry of Commerce and Investment is currently in the latter stages of reforming the Kingdom’s bankruptcy laws and regulations. The new Law is intended to replace certain sections in the Commercial Court Law and the Bankruptcy Protecting Settlement Law dealing with bankruptcy.

A declaration of bankruptcy, according to Article 645 of the Commercial Transactions Law, can be imposed on any trader who ceases to pay some or all of its commercial debts. While a debtor’s cessation of payment is a presumption against him, the trader might not be considered bankrupt if the failure to pay is due to a dispute regarding the debt. In other words, it is important to prove that the debtor ceased to pay a certain commercial debt due to financial distress and credit issues.

Currently in the UAE, laws related to insolvency are unclear. Companies face harsh penalties in a bankruptcy scenario, and individuals can face criminal sanctions and penal sentences. However, a new bankruptcy law drawing from international best practice is expected to come into force in early 2017, in the wake of low oil prices since 2015. With the implementation of the new law, the UAE government seeks to create a robust legal insolvency framework, within which all businesses can operate and parties can be sufficiently protected.

The lack of a modern bankruptcy law, and possible criminal prosecution for debt default, has long been a major issue for entrepreneurs in many parts of the Middle East. That may all be about to change in the UAE as the Cabinet has approved a new draft Bankruptcy Law which aims to encourage foreign investment, boost investor confidence and assist SMEs in managing their business operations. That law is expected to be introduced in early 2017.

The slowdown in the UAE economy has resulted in a corresponding slowdown in loan growth for the UAE banks and some debt delinquencies, especially in the SME market, and that has lead in some cases to a drop in bank profits as a result of increased bad debt provisions. While we understand that contractors who were the first to be affected have largely already made arrangements, that still leaves many bank customers who are feeling the stress of making scheduled loan repayments when their own profitability and cashflows are coming under pressure.

Enforcement of a judgment should be the crown jewel of every successful claim.

However, the picture is not always as rosy. Sometimes the successful litigant is faced with the realisation that the judgment debtor has no substantial assets for the enforcement and recovery of the awarded sums. What is left is an ‘empty’ judgment.

This article will attempt to discuss the situation of empty judgments, what brings them about, ways to prevent them, as well as some practical recommendation and suggestions from our practice and experience.

UAE Law No. 18 of 1993 ‘Concerning Commercial Transactions’ (the “Commercial Transactions Law”) provides a framework for the bankruptcy of persons engaged in trade.

Part Five of the Commercial Transactions Law sets out provisions dealing with the bankruptcy procedure for traders who cease to pay their debts. This article will take a look at the bankruptcy provisions of the Commercial Transactions Law.

Definition of Bankruptcy

Section 1 of Article 645 of the Commercial Transactions Law provides:

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. Squire Patton Boggs’ Dubai office have published a summary of the principal duties and liabilities of a director in the  UAE, both generally and in the event of insolvency.

On 29 March 2016, Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair, Chairman of the UAE Banks Federation (UBF), announced a new “rescue initiative” in relation to SME debt in the United Arab Emirates, under which UBF member banks might impose a 90-day “standstill” on use of judicial means to enforce the payment of SME debts.

In a recent landmark judgment dated 21 February 2016 the Dubai Court of First Instance decided in favour of a foreign shareholder, against a local Emirati, in a winding up petition. This is contrary to the long established protectionist trend employed by Courts in the United Arab Emirates. What is even more surprising is that the Court, in reaching its decision, has adopted a purposive approach, rather than simply applying the black letter of the law, as has traditionally been the case.

Case Details