This article is a case study on how the UAE, a country with two cities which are significant international financial and business centres (namely Dubai and Abu Dhabi), functions without effective insolvency laws; and why this state of affairs is likely to continue for some time.

Whilst it is not strictly true that the UAE has no insolvency laws at all, it is fair to say that no one (debtors or creditors) makes use of the existing laws. A new UAE insolvency law has been drafted, but in the writer’s view it will be years before it sees the light.

OW Bunker, one of the world’s major bunker suppliers and traders, and one of the largest companies in Denmark in terms of revenue, has filed for in-court restructuring for major parts of its business.

The subsidiaries involved face insolvency following the uncovering a $125m fraud in Singapore and a $150m risk management loss.

On 14 December 2014 the DIFC Law No. 2 of 2014, or the “Netting Law of 2014” (the “Law”), came into force as a law in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) following its enactment on 7 December 2014 by His Highness Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai.

Introduction

On 15 June 2015, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (Global Market), Abu Dhabi’s financial free zone, published the following six new regulations concerning the regulation of non-financial services in the Global Market:

The ADGM was established in Abu Dhabi in 2013. However, the ADGM has only recently (on 15 June 2015) published its first set of commercial rules and regulations for non-financial services (the Regulations) relating to companies, insolvency, employment and real property and strata title. It is also expected to publish regulations for financial services later this year. ADGM’s intentions are clear.

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

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:

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 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: