This issue is filled with great insights and expert commentary on areas that are relevant to the legal landscape and highlight how the business community is embracing technology, media and telecommunications. There are various topics covered, from new ways of working and digital transformation in the finance sector to data protection regulatory updates and guidance. We also have a series of articles that focus on e-commerce across a number of jurisdictions.
You will also find insights from our lawyers around real estate analytics, tech trends, and data centres.
We hope this edition of Law Update provides some useful food for thought – enjoy the read!Take a read of the edition
Al Misbah Sabiel
Marwa El Mahdy
However, The Dubai Court of Cassation in its rulings established an exception to this general rule laid by law. The court in the following judgment rendered its decision extending the liability of the partners in a limited liability company to reach their personal assets provided the satisfaction of certain extraordinary specific circumstances as we will see.
Summary of Facts:
The Court of Cassation
The Respondents in their challenging the Court of Appeals judgment raised two arguments
1. The Respondents argued that the lower court erred in obligating the Respondents to pay the sum awarded in the first action. On the grounds that the lower court contradicted the principal of res judicata (courts may not re-adjudicate matters which have been previously judicially finalized). In this sense the Appeals Court allowed the Claimant to obtain a court order with the payment of the sum awarded twice from the same transaction.
Responding to this argument the court held that it was groundless. It is an established judicial principle, that if there are several sources of an obligation, meaning if one person’s liability is derived from the contract and another person’s liability is derived from the harmful act, while both liabilities are tied to the same matter, each of these persons will be held liable against the injured party for full compensation.
In this case, the Claimant did not receive satisfaction of the debt from the LLC as an entity, therefore, the Claimant sought recourse against its shareholders personally (the Respondents). However, the Claimant will not obtain compensation twice. The Claimant’s right is limited to receiving satisfaction of the sum just once. If he receives the awarded sum from either the LLC as an entity or from one of the Respondents, then the other is discharged. The Claimant will then have no right of recourse or enforcement against any of the obligors (being the LLC or the Respondents).
Since there was no proof furnished that the Claimant obtained the awarded amount, he has the right for recourse against the Respondents for their harmful act.
2. The Respondents further argued that the Court of Appeals erred in establishing that the Respondents intentionally committed an aggravated harm to the Claimant. The appealed judgment did not demonstrate the harmful act or the Respondents’ role in harming their company’s creditor (the Claimant).
The Cassation Court held that this argument was groundless. The court established its reasoning on three bases:
1. The effect of the provisions of the UAE Commercial Companies Law in relation to limited liability companies provides:
2. The general rule set forth in Article 218 of the CCL provides that a shareholder in a limited liability company is responsible only to the extent of his share/shares in the capital of the company. The exception to this general rule, as the Court reasoned, is that such shareholder will be held personally liable, if he exploited the principle of the independent liability of the company, as means to conceal his fraudulent acts or misappropriation of the funds of the company in order to cause harm his partners or creditors. In such case, the protection bestowed by law for shareholder in a limited liability company will not apply. He will be held liable in his personal capacity for such dispositions in a way that such liability will extent to his personal assets.
3. It is also construed from provisions of the CCL that the manager of a limited liability company is liable towards the company, the shareholders and third parties for indemnifying loss arising out of his default and neglect in management, all acts of fraud and abuse of power and any breach of the law or the company’s constitutive documents.
The court further held that, the appointed expert’s report established the LLC’s budget exhibited that its most valuable asset was its reserve which value reached AED 6 million. The expert stated that there are no traces of such reserve while the company’s debt reached AED 1 million.
The expert report in its conclusion revealed the intentional vast committed by the manager and the shareholders (the Respondents). Their fraudulent acts are exhibited in concealing the company’s assets which represented the company’s general guarantee to its debts.
The Court therefore established that the Respondents by misappropriating the funds of the LLC by their faults intended to cause damage it its creditors. The Court therefore held the Respondents personally liable for the awarded sum and dismissed the challenge.
We understand from the above judgment that the exception to the limitation of the liability of limited liability companies’ shareholders to the extent of their shares is crucial to safeguard the company’s creditors. In some instances, shareholders in limited liability companies opted to abuse the protection bestowed by law to defraud the company’s creditors. By engaging their personal liability, this exception imposes a condition upon the shareholders and directors of the limited liability company to maintain its assets as a general guarantee to the creditors of the company. Such court practice helps restore customers and investors credibility in conducting transactions with limited liability companies.
Learn how our corporate structuring practice offers legal advice to shareholders in a Limited Liability Company.