Compensation for Arbitrary Dismissals under the UAE’s Labor Law: A Narrowed Scope

Following the enactment of the Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Employment Relationships (the “UAE Labour Law“), which replaced Federal Law No.8 of 1980 (the “Old UAE Labour Law“), the UAE’s employment legal framework has undergone significant transformations, fundamentally impacting the rights and protections of employees. A key area that has experienced notable change is the “arbitrary dismissal” of employment contracts.

The Shift from “Arbitrary Dismissal” to “Illegitimate Termination”

The UAE Labor Law introduced a change in terminology, transitioning from “arbitrary dismissal” as mentioned in Article 123 of the Old UAE Labour Law, to “illegitimate termination” as per Article 47 of the UAE Labour Law.

While this may seem like a mere change in terminology, its implications are considerable. The essence of this change is the specific limitation of the circumstances under which a termination can be classified as “illegitimate,” hence entitling the employee to compensation.

Previously, Article 123 of the Old UAE Labour Law stated, “If the employee has been arbitrarily dismissed, the competent court has the jurisdiction to give judgment against the employer for compensation to the employee. The court shall determine the amount of this compensation, taking into consideration the nature of work sustained by the employee, the period of service, and the dismissal circumstances. Provided that in all cases, the amount of compensation should not exceed the employee’s pay for a period of three months, to be calculated based on the last wage he was obtaining.”

This provision was superseded by Article 47 of the UAE Labour Law, which provides that: “1. The termination of the worker’s service by the employer is unlawful if the termination of the worker’s service is due to filing a serious complaint to the Ministry or filing a lawsuit against the employer, whose validity is proven.

2. The employer shall pay fair compensation to the worker estimated by the competent court if it is proven that the termination is unlawful according to Clause (1) of this Article. The amount of compensation shall be defined by taking into account the work type and the amount of damage caused to the worker and his service term. It is required in all cases that the amount of compensation does not exceed the worker’s wage for a period of (3) three months, calculated according to the last wage he was obtaining.”

The Two Exclusive Pathways for Compensation for Illegitimate Termination

As per Article 47 of the UAE Labour Law, an employee can only claim compensation for an “illegitimate termination” if:

  1. The termination results directly from the employee filing a complaint with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratization (MOHRE); or
  2. The employee initiates a valid legal lawsuit against their employer.

Accordingly, the principle now is that compensation for an “illegitimate termination” is exclusively granted when an employee’s dismissal precisely fits within the above two narrowly outlined situations.

The UAE Courts’ Stance

The recent precedents emerging from the Abu Dhabi and Dubai courts have reinforced this restrictive interpretation. A close examination of their judgments reveals a consistent pattern: the courts have been reticent to award compensations in cases of termination unless they fall under the scenarios outlined in Article 47 of the UAE Labor Law (Dubai Cassation Labour No.232/455 / 2022 /). This judicial approach not only corroborates the explicit wording of the law but also sets a clear pathway for future judgments.

The Implications for Employees and Employers

This new paradigm undeniably reduces the scope for employees to claim compensation in the event of a perceived illegitimate termination. The employees must be aware that, unless their circumstances fit within the defined scenarios of Article 47, the doors to compensation for illegitimate termination are essentially closed. However, while the avenues for compensation in cases of illegitimate termination may be narrower, the employee’s entitlement to end-of-service gratuities remains sacred and protected by the UAE Labour Law.

Employers, on the other hand, should bear in mind that while these legal changes may offer greater clarity and flexibility in certain termination scenarios, the ethical responsibility towards their employees remains paramount. Upholding fair employment practices and respecting the rights of their workforce should always be a guiding principle.

Continual Evolution of UAE’s Employment Legislation

The recent introduction of Federal Decree-Law No.20 of 2023, which amends certain provisions of the UAE Labour Law, marks a progressive improvement in the UAE’s employment legislative framework.

This amendment, set to come into effect on January 1, 2024, authorizes the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratization (MOHRE) to rule on straightforward labor claims. This major development aims to expedite the resolution of labor disputes. In particular, the MOHRE can issue final and binding decisions on disputes having a value less than AED 50,000 or when any party involved has breached a previous amicable settlement decision given by the MOHRE, regardless of the claim’s value. Decisions made by the MOHRE carry the force of a writ of execution. Furthermore, parties can challenge the MOHRE’s decisions before the Court of Appeal within 15 days of being notified of the said decision. The Court of Appeal is then obliged to schedule a hearing within 3 working days and deliver a judgment within 15 days of the appeal submission.

This amendment is designed to not only reduce the judicial load but also to offer quicker relief mechanisms for employees, notably those with lower incomes.


Fidele Kamel



The New Changes to the UAE Bankruptcy Law and Marka’s Bankruptcy


By virtue of Federal Decree-Law No. 35/2021 published in the Official Gazette and entered into force on the 1stof November 2021, the UAE Cabinet approved amendments to the Bankruptcy Law No. 9/2016 (the “Bankruptcy Law”). Most significantly, the amendments introduced the right of a board director, or a manager held liable by the courts pursuant to Article 144 of the Bankruptcy law to appeal said court’s decision in accordance with the provisions of the UAE Civil Procedures Code.

Although the amendments targeted only two articles of the Bankruptcy Law, Articles 144 and 201 thereof, said amendments will have a broad impact on determining the directors’ and managers’ liability in the cases where the Company’s debts cannot be paid.

In a recent decision (Commercial Appeal No. 2807/2021 dated 02/02/2022), the Dubai Court of Appeal applied the new provisions of Article 144 allowing the directors and managers of Marka PJSC and its subsidiaries (“Marka”) to appeal the decision issued by the Court of First Instance (Bankruptcy Procedures14/2019 dated 10/10/2021) which held the nine directors of Marka personally liable for all of Marka’s debts totaling AED448million approximately.



Marka and its directors: a love-hate bankruptcy

In 2019, due to a debt deriving from non-paid rents, Al-Dar Properties PJSC filed a bankruptcy application against Marka. The Dubai Court of First Instance accepted the Bankruptcy application in November 2020 and appointed two registered experts as trustees, who estimated Marka’s debts to be slightly worth AED448million.

The Court founded its decision on the trustees’ report and Article 144 of the Bankruptcy Law in its old version to rule that Marka lacked funds to pay 20 percent of its debts and declared that the directors and managers violated the Bankruptcy Law by failing to provide the trustees with financial statements and not justifying the lack of any funds despite the expansion of Marka’s activity and the substantial volume of its transactions. Moreover, the Court considered that the directors and managers mismanaged Marka, and thus, harmed the interests of the shareholders and creditors of the company and its subsidiaries. The Court held Marka’s directors and managers personally liable for all of Marka’s debts amounting to a total of AED448million approximately. The Court decided to also freeze the bank accounts of the nine directors and managers, and to put attachments on their securities and investments, real estate properties, and cars, while also transmitting the case to the Public Prosecutor for further handling of any criminal acts committed by the nine directors.

Marka’s directors and managers were not parties to the case and lacked the opportunity to present a defense and challenge the trustees’ findings. The nine directors and managers appealed the First Instance Court decision pursuant to the new provisions of the Bankruptcy Law.



Amendments with broad impacts 

In brief, the amendments provided for in the new Bankruptcy Law consist of the following:

  1. Dimension of the Personal Liability on Directors and Managers in Case of Bankruptcy

Article 144 in its previous version imposed personal liability on directors and managers who are evidently accountable for the company’s losses under the UAE Commercial Companies Law provisions, and in case the company could not pay at least 20% of its debts and liabilities.

By removing the reference to the Commercial Companies Law, the legislator no longer grants the courts discretion in declaring the directors and managers personally liable for the companies’ losses, but has limited the cases where such liability can be declared to the acts set forth under paragraphs a, b, and c of Article 147-1 of the Bankruptcy Law which state the following: 

“1- In case of a bankruptcy declaration, the Court may compel the board members, the managers or the liquidators in liquidation procedures taken beyond the scope of this Decree-Law, to pay an amount to cover the debts if it was proven that any of them committed any of the following acts during the two years following the date of initiating the procedures (Bankruptcy) according to this Section:

a- Adopts commercial methods without considering its risks, such as disposing of the goods at prices lower than their market value, to receive monies to avoid or delay initiating the bankruptcy procedures.

b- Engages in transactions with a third party to dispose of assets at no charge or for an inadequate charge and without certain benefit or not proportionate to the debtor’s assets.

c- Fulfilling any of the creditors’ debts with the intent to cause damage to other creditors during the period of cessation of payment or during insolvency. 

2- The Court shall not render its judgment outlined in this Article if the Court is convinced that the physical or legal person had taken all possible preventive measures to reduce the potential losses that may affect the debtor’s assets and his creditors.

3- The Board directors of any entity, the managers or the liquidators shall be exempt from liability for the acts stipulated in this Article if it was proved that they did not participate in such acts or if they proved their reservation on the decision issued in their regard.”

Furthermore, the two newly added provisions of Article 144 give the directors and/or managers against whom an order has been issued according to paragraph (1) of Article 147, the right to appeal such ruling in accordance with the provisions of the UAE Civil Procedures Code. Such appeal shall not result in the stay of execution or affect the res judicata force of the order declaring the company’s bankruptcy.

It should be noted that in any proceeding initiated outside the Bankruptcy Law, the liability outlined in the aforementioned Article 144 does not release the directors and managers from their liability under the Commercial Companies Law. In principle, the company shall be bound by any act or behavior of its directors and managers taken while conducting the affairs of management in a usual manner. The company shall also be bound by any action taken by any of its employees or agents authorized to act on its behalf, and whereby a third party relies thereon in its transaction with the company (Article 23 of the Commercial Companies Law). However, this does not prevent the managers and directors from being held accountable for their mismanagement that causes harm to the company, the shareholders, or third parties. In application of this liability, the Commercial Companies Law regulates in its Articles 164, 165 and 166, the responsibility of the directors and managers for fraud, abuse of authority, and any violation of the provisions of the law, as well as the damages they cause during and on the occasion of their management of the company.

  1. The Criminal Liability of the Directors and Managers in Case of Bankruptcy

Article 201 of the Bankruptcy Law imposes a criminal liability against a bankrupt company’s directors and managers for various enumerated acts. Two main amendments were introduced to said Article:

  • the intentional element in the enumerated acts that must be present to declare a director or manager criminally liable and;
  • the imprisonment as a punishment for the directors and managers’ liability can be substituted by a fine.

The amended Article 201 states the following:

The members of the board of directors, the managers and the liquidators of the Company declared bankrupt by a final order shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and/or a fine not exceeding AED100,000, if they commit any of the following acts:

  1. Deliberately fail to keep commercial books sufficiently reflecting the Company’s actual financial position or fail to carry out the inventory required by law, with the intent to cause harm to the Company or its creditors.
  2. Deliberately withhold the information required by the trustee appointed according to the provisions of Chapter Four of this Decree-Law or by the Court, or intentionally submit false information to him.
  3. To conceal assets from the creditors, dispose of the Company’s assets after the cessation of payments.
  4. Pay the debt of a creditor after cessation of payments to cause damage to the other creditors, or decide securities or benefits for a creditor that are more favorable than for the other creditors, even if the same was to conclude the protective composition or restructuring.
  5. Dispose of the Company’s assets for lower than their market value in bad faith or use methods or means that would cause harm to the creditors’ interests with the intention to receive funds to avoid or delay the cessation of payments or a declaration of Bankruptcy or to terminate the protective composition procedure or a restructuring.
  6. Spend gross amounts on gambling or speculative ventures that are outside the scope of the Company’s business.
  7. Enter into gross undertakings for an interest other than the interest of the Company, and without consideration, compared to the Company’s financial status as at the time of entering into such undertakings.

The penalty provided for in this Article shall not be applicable to a person whose participation in the acts prohibited hereunder is not established, or whose reservation on the Company decision to perform the actions stated above is established.

  1. The New Possibility to Appeal Precautionary Measures 

In addition to the amendments to Article 144 and Article 201 of the Bankruptcy Law, Article 2 of the new Bankruptcy Law gives the directors and managers against whom the court rendered a decision imposing a travel ban, or placing their funds under provisional attachment or taking any other restrictive measures, the right to appeal such decision or measure before the Court of Appeal in accordance with the provisions of the UAE Civil Procedures Code. The Court of Appeal may order the stay of execution of the decision if such decision or order results in irreparable damages and the application is based on serious valid reasons.



Marka’s directors: Liable or not liable?

Back to Marka’s case, the Dubai Court of Appeal in its decision No. 2807 dated February 2nd, 2022, ruled that the Court of First Instance, erred in its respective application of the law. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the First Instance Court which had held the directors and managers liable.

In details, the Court of Appeal joined and accepted the appeals made by the nine directors/managers, basing its acceptance on the new provisions of Article 144 of the Bankruptcy Law.

In a turnaround judgment, the Court of Appeal stated that “there is no judgment without a trial in place, nor is there an obligation before presenting the defense or being notified of the procedures in which a mandatory judgment may be issued, which is why this court decides to overturn the appealed judgment in what it decided in its fourth, sixth and seventh paragraph, because the trial was not convened, and to return the case to the first instance court”. The Court of Appeal added that in order to preserve the right of the appellants (the nine directors and managers) to have a trial on two degrees, the case should return to the First Instance Court.

Contribution by Farah Wahab, Ali El Maoula and Abdallah Al Naqbi.

Dubai’s Arbitrations Under One Roof

In an economy where arbitration is increasingly gaining ground as the dispute resolution mechanism of choice, the United Arab Emirates has responded to its needs through the creation of specialized centers.

In order to promote international arbitration and to attract international users, the Dubai International Financial Centre- the London Court of International Arbitration (the “DIFC-LCIA” or the “Centre”) was established in 2008 and was presented at that time by the Chief Justice Sir Anthony Evans as “essentially a joint venture between the DIFC and the LCIA, one of the leading players in the arbitration world”.
Moreover, the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (“EMAC”) was later established in 2016 to provide the maritime industry with the alternative dispute resolution services required in the Middle East region.

On 14 September 2021, the DIFC-LCIA and the EMAC were dissolved by virtue of Decree No. (34) of 2021 on the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (the “Decree”) issued by His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum in his capacity as Ruler of Dubai, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. This Decree replaces the DIFC-LCIA and the EMAC by a unified arbitration center for Dubai which is the existing Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) but with a new and different structure.
According to the Decree, the DIAC is a non-governmental center with financial and administrative independence from the Dubai Government. The new DIAC having its headquarters in Dubai is expected to have a branch in the DIFC.

Key provisions of the Decree

Pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of the Decree, the DIFC-LCIA and the EMAC were abolished and thus, the assets, properties, receivables, employers, lists of arbitrators and mediators and experts belonging to the abolished institutions will be transferred to DIAC.

The Decree has raised major concerns pertaining to ongoing cases under the rules of the DIFC-LCIA and EMAC. In this regard, Article 6 of the Decree provided that arbitration agreements under the abolished centers will be deemed valid and effective, unless the parties agree otherwise, and that tribunals constituted under the abolished regime may continue their duties according to the rules of the abolished institutions under DIAC’s supervision.

Whilst the Decree is effective as of its publication date, Article 9 of the Decree has granted DIAC a grace period of six months starting from 20 September 2021 until 20 March 2022 to effectively replace the DIFC-LCIA and the EMAC.
As to the arbitration seat, parties can continue to choose between an onshore Dubai seat for their arbitration or offshore seat in the DIFC. Where the parties fail to designate a seat, the DIFC will be the default seat and the DIFC arbitration law will apply.

In order to replace the abolished centers, the DIAC will establish a court of arbitration which will supervise the application of the Decree and arbitration rules and procedures, appoint tribunals and fix the costs and expenses of arbitrations.

Modernization and Promotion of Arbitration in Dubai

For some time now, the Dubai government has been putting efforts in modernizing its agenda and updating its laws and rules especially those relating to arbitration. In 2018, the United Arab Emirates has enacted a new federal arbitration law based on the UNCITRAL Model Law similar to the arbitration law enacted in the DIFC.

Dubai’s efforts have indeed paid off. According to a recent study published in May 2021 by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London, Dubai was listed as one of the top 10 International Arbitration Hubs.
The Decree, considered by arbitration practitioners as “strategic”, has significantly enhanced the status of the DIAC. The DIAC which was mostly attracting local UAE arbitrations, is now the destination of choice for both local and international arbitration proceedings, the latter being previously mainly referred to DIFC-LCIA.

The new DIAC, a cumulative combination of DIAC’s acquired experience in UAE laws, as well as DIFC-LCIA’s international expertise and EMAC’s know-how in the maritime field, would promote Dubai into becoming a global hub for both local and international arbitrations “under one roof”.

By Abdallah Al Naqbi and Fidele Kamel.

التحكيم في دبي: تحت سقف واحد
في اقتصاد أضحى فيه التحكيم الآلية الأكثر اعتماداً لتسوية النزاعات، واكبت الإمارات العربية المتحدة النمو الكبير لهذه الآلية من خلال إنشاءها لمراكز التحكيم.
بالفعل، تم إنشاء مركز دبي المالي العالمي – محكمة لندن للتحكيم الدولي “DIFC-LCIA” عام 2008 من أجل تعزيز التحكيم الدولي وجذب المستخدمين الدوليين. تم وصف هذا المركز من قبل رئيس القضاة السير أنتوني إيفانز على أنه “مشروعًا مشتركًا بشكل أساسي بين مركز دبي المالي العالمي ومحكمة لندن للتحكيم الدولي، إحدى الجهات الفاعلة الرئيسية في عالم التحكيم”.

كما وتم إنشاء مركز الإمارات للتحكيم البحري “EMAC” في العام 2016، لتزويد الصناعة البحرية بخدمات لتسوية النزاعات بالأساليب البديلة المطلوبة في منطقة الشرق الأوسط.
بتاريخ 14 سبتمبر 2021، أصدر صاحب السمو الشيخ محمد بن راشد آل مكتوم، نائب رئيس الدولة رئيس مجلس الوزراء، بصفته حاكم إمارة دبي، المرسوم رقم (34) لسنة 2021 بشأن “مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي” (فيما يلي “المرسوم”) والذي نصّ على إلغاء كل من مركز الإمارات للتحكيم البحري ومؤسسة التحكيم في مركز دبي المالي العالمي ودمج اختصاصاتهما وصلاحياتهما في مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي “DIAC” ولكن بهيكلية جديدة ومختلفة.
وفقًا لهذا المرسوم، يكون مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي مركزاً غير حكومياً لا يهدف إلى تحقيق الربح ويتمتع بالشخصية الاعتبارية والاستقلال المالي والإداري. ومن المتوقع أن يكون لمركز التحكيم الدولي الجديد مقر في مركز دبي المالي العالمي، مختلفاً عن مقره الرئيسي في دبي.

الأحكام الرئيسية للمرسوم

عملاً بالمادتين 4 و5 من المرسوم، تم إلغاء مركز دبي المالي العالمي-محكمة لندن للتحكيم الدولي ومركز الإمارات للتحكيم البحري. وبالتالي، نص المرسوم على نقل ملكيّة العقارات والمنقولات والأصول والأموال العائدة لمراكز التحكيم المُلغاة، وكذلك الموظفين الذين يتقرّر نقلهم، والمخصصات المالية، وقوائم المُحكِّمين ووسطاء التوفيق والخُبراء المُقيّدين في مراكز التحكيم المُلغاة، وكذلك عُضويّة الأشخاص المُنتسِبين إليها إلى مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي.
أثار المرسوم قلقًا بشأن الدعاوى التحكيمية الجارية بموجب قواعد مركز دبي المالي العالمي-محكمة لندن للتحكيم الدولي ومركز الإمارات للتحكيم البحري. في هذا الصدد، نصت المادة 6 من المرسوم على أن اتفاقيات التحكيم الجارية أمام المراكز الملغاة تعتبر صحيحة ونافذة ما لم يتفق الأطراف على خلاف ذلك. كما وأنه يمكن للهيئات التحكيمية المشكلة بموجب النظام الملغى مواصلة واجباتها وفقًا لقواعد المراكز الملغاة ولكن تحت إشراف مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي.
رغم أنه اعتبر المرسوم ساري المفعول اعتبارًا من تاريخ نشره في الجريدة الرسمية، مُنحت فترة سماح مدتها ستة أشهر تبدأ من 20 سبتمبر 2021 حتى 20 مارس 2022 لمركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي بموجب المادة 9 من المرسوم ليحل مكان مركز دبي المالي العالمي-محكمة لندن للتحكيم الدولي ومركز الإمارات للتحكيم البحري بفعالية.

أما فيما يتعلق بالمقر القانوني للتحكيم، فنص المرسوم أنه يمكن للأطراف الاستمرار في الاختيار بين مقر محلي في دبي أو مقر خارجي في مركز دبي المالي العالمي. وفي حال لم يتم تعيين مقعد من قبل أطراف الدعوى التحكيمية، يكون مركز دبي المالي العالمي هو المقعر الافتراضي ويتم تطبيق قانون التحكيم الخاص بمركز دبي المالي العالمي.
كما وأنه، من أجل استبدال المراكز التي تم إلغاؤها، نص المرسوم أن مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي سينشئ محكمة تحكيم تشرف على تطبيقه وإنفاذ قواعد التحكيم وإجراءاته، وتعيين هيئات التحكيم، وتحدد تكاليف ونفقات التحكيم.

خطوة نحو تحديث وتعزيز التحكيم في دبي

منذ فترة، تبذل حكومة دبي جهودًا ملحوظة لتحديث جدول أعمالها وتطوير قوانينها وقواعدها خاصة تلك المتعلقة بالتحكيم.
ففي العام 2018، سنّت دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة قانون تحكيم اتحادي جديد مستنداً إلى قانون الأونسيترال النموذجي (UNCITRAL Model Law) على غرار قانون التحكيم المعتمد في مركز دبي المالي العالمي.
وبالفعل، أثمرت جهود دبي، فوفقًا لدراسة حديثة نُشرت في مايو 2021 من قبل كلية التحكيم الدولي بجامعة كوين ماري في لندن، تم إدراج دبي كواحدة من أفضل 10 مراكز تحكيم دولية.
وقد أدى المرسوم، الذي اعتبره متخصصو التحكيم على أنه “استراتيجي”، إلى تعزيز مكانة مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي بشكل ملحوظ. فأصبح مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي الذي كان يجذب غالباً عمليات التحكيم المحلية في الإمارات العربية المتحدة، الوجهة المفضلة لإجراءات التحكيم، ليس فقط المحلية بل الدولية أيضاً التي كانت تحال سابقًا بشكل أساسي إلى مركز دبي المالي العالمي-محكمة لندن للتحكيم الدولي.

إن مركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي الجديد، الذي يمثل مزيجاً تراكمياً بين الخبرة المكتسبة لمركز دبي للتحكيم الدولي في قوانين دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة وبين الخبرة الدولية لمركز دبي المالي العالمي-محكمة لندن للتحكيم الدولي ودراية مركز الإمارات للتحكيم البحري في المجال البحري، من شأنه أن يعزز دبي لتصبح مركزًا عالميًا للتحكيم المحلي والدولي “تحت سقف واحد”.

اعداد عبدالله النقبي وفيدال كامل.

Al Naqbi & Partners – Hayat Law Association

We are pleased to announce Al Naqbi & Partners’ Association with Hayat Law.

Hayat Law is a renowned professional legal partnership founded in 2012 offering quality and wide-ranging legal services to individual clients, local and regional corporations and government entities across the MENA region. Hayat Law has offices in Beirut and Baghdad.

Our association with Hayat Law is an important milestone for both firms and our respective team members. Our greatest assets have always been our people, and by joining forces we have just made a significant increase in the quality of that asset.

From our clients’ perspective, this new association provides our clients with enhanced and more extensive experience and expertise which allow us to offer wider and more effective solutions with faster action and response time.
In addition, both firms’ expertise and services are complementary which will allow us to broaden the scope of our legal services, both geographically and from a subject matter perspective. Both firms have similar visions and a shared goal which is to offer excellent solutions to our clients.

With this association in place, we are now able to provide legal services to our clients in Dubai, Baghdad and Beirut. We have also established solid collaborations with international law firms in various jurisdictions, including Washington D.C., London, Geneva, Amsterdam, Cyprus, Paris, Riyadh and Shanghai.

Please join us as we look forward to a prosperous and successful year for our team members, partners and clients.

Read More