Tim Elliot: Hello and welcome to Lawgical, the legal podcast from the Dubai-based law firm, HPL Yamalova & Plewka, and the U.A.E.’s first legal podcast. I am 18 floors up in JLT at the offices of HPL Yamalova & Plewka with the Managing Partner, Ludmila Yamalova. Good to see you.
Ludmila Yamalova: Great to see you too, Tim.
Tim Elliot: You know, it’s good to be here. This has been such a strange year in so many ways. I am not going to go into even trying to describe how it’s been weird. We all know why it’s been weird, but towards the end of 2020 here in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates we’ve seen some real change from a legal perspective. What I want to do, Ludmila, is run through some of those legal changes. But just before we even get there, let’s just set the scene. I was surprised with some of the things that I read in the paper. You were surprised with some of the things that came out that were subsequently published in the Official Gazette in the end of November, the 30th. Just tell us how surprised you were because there have been some big decisions and changes made.
Ludmila Yamalova: Indeed. The surprise perhaps was in two stages. One was early in September and October when the announcements in the media came out about various anticipated amendments in the U.A.E. laws. There were news stories and updates about amendments to laws regarding, for example, honor crimes or about decriminalizing alcohol or decriminalizing cohabitation without being married. There were some announcements or an indication that perhaps personal status laws would also be changed. A lot of these, as a practitioner in the U.A.E., sounded very groundbreaking, if you will. In order for those amendments to really perhaps make an impact in the way that this community and this country is ready for and would benefit from, it just required for those amendments to really be groundbreaking. Therefore, whenever the announcements came, we were all a bit conservative in I guess welcoming the changes or celebrating changes until we have seen the law. We were surprised then when the announcements were made, and also the announcements were made not in your typical fashion where a law was amended. Rather there were a whole series of laws that were going to be amended, but it wasn’t very clear in what shape, how many, and how fast, but when the announcements came out, it was pretty comprehensive in terms of the scope of the new legislation. Then, we all sat on the sidelines and waited.
Tim Elliot: Yea, exactly. Yea.
Ludmila Yamalova: The second dose or round of surprise came when the amendments were actually made available. Now, how are amendments made available and what does that mean in the U.A.E.? They were made available by publication in the Official Gazette. In relevant terms, what that means is for a lot of the common law in this country it has to be published in the Official Gazette. Now when the Official Gazette is made available to the public, there are a few little nuances in terms of the effectiveness of some of these new laws. For example, this Official Gazette came out in November 30th, but it includes some laws which were signed back in September and therefore effectively came into force back then in September. For example, a number of penal code amendments, but we have not actually been able to rely on those laws until the Official Gazette has been published. Some of these laws already came into effect before the Official Gazette was made available, but you could not really rely on them until the Official Gazette is published. You are kind of going backwards with regard to some of the laws. Other laws became effective as of the date that the Official Gazette was published, and yet other laws will become effective on a certain date. For example, there were amendments to the company laws. Those amendments or that law will come into effect in March of next year. We were surprised when the Official Gazette was published because it was right before the national holiday and that is the U.A.E.’s National Day of December 2nd, and the country was closing down for almost a week-long holiday or celebration. This was Monday, I believe, it was November 30th, the last day, and then December 1st was already a holiday, so by the first or second part of the last working day the Official Gazette – bam – became available. That’s when the next level of surprise came because there were over 200 pages of new laws and amendments.
Tim Elliot: Which is huge, isn’t it? That’s not normal.
Ludmila Yamalova: It is not normal. Typically, Official Gazettes usually are issued almost every month whenever there is a new law, and believe it or not, there is always a new law. But very often we receive and Official Gazette that is 10 pages, or five pages, so it is just one law. But this is over 200 pages and it includes 23 different laws that have been amended or added, 23 sets of laws. That’s not to say 23 changes. It’s 23 sets of laws. Within each one of these laws there were a whole series of amendments and then sub amendments within each one of the laws. I think all in all, we are still processing. It hasn’t been long enough, but I’d say there have been at least a good 30 to 40 very substantive and groundbreaking amendments.
Tim Elliot: I’m going to ask you to run through some of the more maybe salient points, some of the things that really surprised you in a minute. But I do have to ask, and maybe this is asking you to speculate, but why now for some of these changes? Because they’re not just changes to existing laws. Some of these are sea changes almost to existing laws, and they are also, I guess it’s reasonable to say, cultural changes in some instances.
Ludmila Yamalova: A great question. I’d say there are perhaps several reasons for that or speculations. One, I think more of an emotional, probably not a real substantive reason, or a real reason, but it’s just as you said, it’s been such a weird year. It’s just been such a bizarre year, and it has been so difficult for I think the majority of the population worldwide, save for a few very lucky companies. But this pandemic has really affected negatively most of us, particularly economies and people, people’s lives, and such. It’s been such a depressing year and as we’re coming towards the end of it, there’s definitely a joke that goes around. People just cannot wait. They hope that the first of January comes along – bang – somehow there will be a new order and a new world, and this dark cloud will lift. There is that unreasonable expectation that come January 1st things will change back to normal. Obviously, that’s not realistic, but it’s been such a strange and difficult year, so perhaps this was a breath of fresh air and that’s to your point that there is always a silver lining to every cloud. Perhaps this is our silver lining, but that is more of an allegorical way of looking at things. But it certainly feels that way as we are approaching the end of the year and especially after this bizarre year. Here we’ve got so many positive changes to look forward to. I think that’s the silver lining, and that the time of it is very pointed, before the national holidays, and towards the Christmas holidays and New Year holidays and such. But that’s obviously more metaphorical and allegorical way of looking at things.
Now, I think another reason, and perhaps this is more of a real reason, is that it was about time that a lot of these changes became effective.
(1) A lot of the changes that have been made, in a way they have been implicitly practiced here already, and it is just that the laws had not changed, and they just needed to be updated.
(2) The country feels that it needs to keep moving forward and especially perhaps given that the changes worldwide that are ongoing, it wants to continue to attract people to come and live here and to make it their home for the long haul. I am speculating – I was not part of the legislative committee – that they just needed to continue to evolve and regroup and see what new incentives they can create to attract people to come here and want to make this their home. Now, a lot of the laws that, as I said earlier, that were amended, they were not necessarily ever enforced. For example, the idea of cohabitation, that is living together for a couple without being married, everyone knew it was illegal, but it was never in realistic terms enforced. That being said, all of those people who have lived here and knowing that it is not, technically speaking, proper, it’s just a little unsettling. Perhaps, the country thought it’s time that we amend the laws and make them more consistent with what’s going on in the country in general and with regard to what we want the country to be. I think that is the other reason.
Then, (3) a number of laws had to come out because they have more to do with taxes and the central bank and banking regulations and keeping up with regulations that are happening and being introduced in other parts of the world.
Tim Elliot: Progressive, it definitely is, and it’s taken a lot of people by surprise. Let’s go through some of the changes that really jump out and perhaps are more relevant to more people. Let’s start with changes to the penal code: Things like harassment or alcohol, which obviously took a lot of people by surprise, cohabitation you mentioned, but there is also a new approach to cases of rape. There are new approaches to cases of suicide. Just run through, Ludmila, if you would, the new approaches to those.
Ludmila Yamalova: Yes. When we say the penal code, it’s basically the U.A.E. criminal law that was originally introduced back in the 1980s. So, when we are talking about the amendments, it is the amendments to this particular law. This law has obviously been amended over the years, but the provisions that were amended this time relate to a number of very important provisions that on the one hand bring laws in consistent with the practice that had already been in place, and on the other hand laws that were long overdue. For example, as part of the penal code, one of the amendments was decriminalizing alcohol and the decriminalizing of alcohol consumption, possession, trade, advertising, and such. Interestingly enough, in the past, just to give you by way of comparison, in the past there was a provision in the penal code that in simple terms stated that it was illegal to consume alcohol, possess, or trade, unless it was for non-Muslims. In other words, it was illegal. The default rule was it was illegal to drink unless you are non-Muslim. In general terms, that was the law. Now that law has been scrapped and the new law says something to the effect of it is no longer illegal to drink alcohol in permitted places and cases, full stop, basically, though they let us provide that each emirate can then introduce their own regulations to further regulate trade, advertising, possession, and such of alcohol. But the penal code no longer makes it a crime to drink alcohol. It doesn’t, at least the language of the penal code no longer differentiates between Muslims or non-Muslims. How that is going to be applied in the future remains to be seen. But if you just contrast the previous version which clearly stated it was illegal unless you were non-Muslim, now it says it is no longer illegal, stop.
Tim Elliot: It is a huge change. It really is. But that doesn’t mean to say you could make a public nuisance of yourself drunk. Of course, that is an exception. But it is no longer illegal to consume alcohol.
Ludmila Yamalova: That’s it. As many of us who have lived here for a long time know, the non-Muslims have had the right, with the right license, depending on the emirate, to drink. But there have also been a lot of perhaps that are Muslims that come from different countries and such that also drink. It is one of those examples where there is a discrepancy in the law and practice. There was no really effective enforcement mechanism to make sure that this particular law is applied, at least as far as Muslims were concerned, and so this amendment to the law updates the laws to reflect the current and existing reality and perhaps the expectations of where the country wants things to move.
Tim Elliot: There have been some recent changes or at least changes in the outlook, if you like, on alcohol. We’ve had recent moves that if you have a stamp on your passport that proves you are a tourist here, you have been, for the last year or so, maybe a little bit longer, the right to go to an off license and purchase alcohol if it is for private consumption because that was one of the changes introduced.
Ludmila Yamalova: Because there were a lot of discrepancies in the laws. Even the previous law had a bit of, I guess, confusion about a case. The way it was drafted, you could drink in certain places, but what happens in you drink in that place and then you were moving from that place to somewhere else, and you were stopped in the process? There was a bit of a discrepancy in how you interpret that law, so as you said, those changes that had happened before were to update or reflect that. But this is quite groundbreaking because it overhauls the entire position on alcohol in general in the country.
Tim Elliot: Yea.
Ludmila Yamalova: That, by the way, is a federal law. It’s important to highlight, it is not emirate based. This is federal because the penal code, the criminal law, is federal. Therefore, it is no longer criminal to drink or to possess alcohol, period. That is around the country. Individual emirates can introduce regulations perhaps or requiring obtaining a license to drink, or maybe not, but whatever those regulations might be, the breach of those regulations will no longer have criminal repercussions.
Tim Elliot: Ludmila, let’s move to other areas of the penal code that have been updated in this plethora of changes that we’ve seen. First of all, harassment.
Ludmila Yamalova: Yes. There is now a new provision in the penal code that ultimately criminalizes harassment of women, and it is a fairly clear provision. It criminalizes it by imprisonment and a fine. This is a brand-new provision. It did not exist in the code before.
Tim Elliot: Okay. But how do you define harassment for purposes of this?
Ludmila Yamalova: There is physical harassment and then there are a few comments in the law, for example, any advances or assaults that are against someone’s will. By against their will, there are different ways, there are physical abilities and also mental abilities. Ultimately, it’s assault, assault under coercion, and that’s a brand-new article. There was no such article before. Now there is clearly a crime. In fact, the law would even criminalize something like if somebody gets abused verbally on the street, that too is an offense. Harassment can be verbal. It can be physical. It can be mental. Big news for all those perhaps victims in the past who have not been able to raise these concerns to the authorities. If you recall, there have been a number of cases over the years, for example, of alleged rape. Previously those kinds of claims were quite difficult to adjudicate for the victim because the law did not exist in a way that would allow, for example, victims of rape to rely on a specific provision. Now, that particular case for rape, now it is very clear that any kind of physical assault against someone’s will, and obviously rape would definitely qualify, is a criminal offense. It sounds very simple, yet it is extremely groundbreaking. Obviously, rape is rape, and perhaps in other jurisdictions it may appear that law should have existed and it’s clearly a crime. But until now, the way the penal code was drafted here, there wasn’t a specific provision that would allow victims to avail themselves of protection. Not anymore. That is another example.
Tim Elliot: There were three other areas of the penal code I’d like to come to. The first of those is one area that I think took everybody in the country by complete surprise, and that is the change in legal attitudes to cohabitation.
Ludmila Yamalova: Yes. Cohabitation refers to basically living together for a couple that is not married. Again, the way the law was drafted in the past there was much concern that even friends and other people living as long as it is mixed sex under the same roof and they are not married, there potentially could be some legal repercussions to that. The way the law was drafted in the past definitely there were some reasonable grounds for people for people to be worried or concerned that they might not be protected under those circumstances. Now, that whole provision has been taken out. It is no longer criminal ultimately for people to be living together if they are not married. So, the entire provision basically has been taken out. Before there was a provision in the penal code that said, and this is the terminology, obviously translated from Arabic, “indecent assault or indecent behavior.” That referred ultimately to sexual relationships. The way the language was included in the code is that it is illegal basically for anyone to have this “indecent behavior” and it was penalized. Now, that entire provision has been taken out. Instead, new provisions were added, for example, criminalizing harassment, criminalizing rape, and establishing a few other aggravating circumstances for harassment and physical and sexual assault for children and family members. That provision, in a way, has been flipped upside down because before it was rather all encompassing without the expressed provisions for victims. Now, there are very, very specific provisions providing protection to victims from age to familial circumstances to those who are under the authority of someone, in other words, adding specific provisions criminalizing, – this is a pretty groundbreaking law – for anyone to assault someone over whom they have authority, for example a guardian or any other, there is even a catchall, anyone they have authority over. That is pretty groundbreaking. Therefore, any kind of assault that may happen under those circumstances is now specifically a criminal offense. Not only that, the penalty that has been introduced with some of these, particularly aggravated offenses, is life imprisonment. For example, any kind of sexual assault or sexual intercourse, even with somebody who is below the age of 14, even if it is consensual, is life imprisonment. That did not exist, so it is a brand-new law.
Tim Elliot: The final two areas I wanted to bring up with you, legal attitudes to suicide changing, but also the so-called honor killings as well.
Ludmila Yamalova: Yes. Two very important areas of amendments under the penal code. With regard to suicide, prior to this current draft of the law or language of the law, suicide was illegal. In fact, the way the article read it was that anyone who commits suicide or attempts to commit suicide would be punishable by at least one year in prison plus a fine. That is how the law read before. Now it just says that anyone who attempts to commit suicide, ultimately the judge has the option of either imposing some kind of penalty or referring them for medical treatment. Judges will have the option of referring the victims or those who attempted suicide for treatment. It is a huge step forward in two ways. (1) Now the judges have options to refer for treatment, and (2) there is also this implicit acknowledgement and recognition that suicide or attempts and wanting to commit suicide is a medical condition and therefore may require treatment. That is pretty groundbreaking.
Tim Elliot: It really is. Honor killings as well, it’s a concept to grasp, but the change there is clearly very positive.
Ludmila Yamalova: Indeed. I have to tell you and confess that many of us in this office did not know that there was a specific law here that ultimately provided mitigating penalties or mitigating circumstances for crimes that were committed in the name of protecting family honor. But that is the case. There was a law before that provided for lesser punishment for anyone who committed any kind of an assault, including killing in the name of protecting the family honor. They were treated differently. Now that entire article has been removed altogether and now any kind of physical assault or killing is treated as any other crime. It will no longer be an honor killing. It will just be purely murder, and in most cases, it would be premeditated murder. Therefore, it is no longer an honor killing. It is now a murder and any kind of assault in the name of protecting family honor is equally so a felony or a crime that is punishable just like any other crime or a physical assault or a murder. That entire article that existed before is no more. That is huge. Now, many of us did not even know that there was such a law here, but obviously the U.A.E. has taken quite a thorough look through its many, many laws and decided to make a step forward and clean up those perhaps that no longer belong in the books and introduce new ones which are more up with the times.
Tim Elliot: Let’s move onto personal status. There are two areas I’d like to talk to you about. Changes in laws that apply to marriages, but also changes in the laws that apply to wills, but wills specifically for Muslims.
Ludmila Yamalova: Yes, and yet another groundbreaking area. Until this law, in short, it was not possible for Muslims to register a will. Now, I’ll clarify that. Muslims in the U.A.E. are subject to Sharia law and under Sharia law a person cannot dispose of their estate by a will unless there are two conditions: (1) It is no more than one-third of their estate, and (2) the the beneficiary of the will is a non-heir. In other words, if you have a Muslim father or a Muslim family who had two girls, they could not have a will. They would not be able to register a will for their girls because the girls obviously are heirs. You cannot register a will for heirs. Furthermore, there was another procedural condition, and that is if a Muslim wanted to register a will subject to those two conditions, (1) again that it is only one-third of the estate and (2) that it goes to a non-heir, that kind of will only had to be registered before the courts. It is almost like a court judgment and through the proceedings obviously the court would have to establish this is an heir, this is not an heir, so you could not go register a will. Basically, it was a request of the court that had to be approved.
As for the new law, every emirate will establish a registry for will registration for Muslims, with that specific language, a “will registry for Muslims.” We will see how it is actually going to take shape and what shape it takes as time goes on and in what form and shape it is implemented, but the idea is that now there will be a wills registry, not courts to register wills. The presumption, and there is a reasonable implication, that what this means in establishing a will registry is now allowing Muslims to register wills which is something that did not exist before. That’s with regard to wills. Once again, we will have to come back and revisit this issue as the law is implemented and these wills registries are formed, but the presumption is that the purpose of this is exactly that, that is, to allow Muslims to register wills. Whenever you register a will, the presumption is not this one-third of your estate and a non-heir because for that, you did not need to have a new law. The law existed for that, so the fact that there is a new law means that this new law provides additional and a new framework. That’s another very interesting development to keep watching.
Tim Elliot: It is. It’s progressive and that’s a word that we keep using, I guess, but it’s also the laws that apply to marriage have been updated as well.
Ludmila Yamalova: Correct, and that is the personal status law once again. Now that law has been amended to state that in cases of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, it’s the law of the state where the marriage is registered that would apply. For example, let’s say you take an American couple who are Muslim. They were married in the U.S. and they moved to the U.A.E. They were married in the U.S. being the operative phrase, so they would move to the U.A.E. and they would apply for their residency and have the residency registered here on the back of their marriage certificate. This is a necessary document here to present to the authorities when you do apply for your residency. Now they are registered here as Americans, but Muslims because again it is part of the paperwork here when you apply for residency, you have to state your religion. In the past, they would have been, let’s say in the case of a divorce or inheritance they would have, by default, been subject to Sharia. Now, at least as per the new law, it’s the law of the state where the marriage is registered which in this case would be the U.S. and the American law would apply. Again, the presumption is that this means for all those non-nationals, including Muslims amongst them, they will have a choice of the laws that they want to apply. The default choice will be the laws of the state where the marriage was registered unless perhaps, they want Sharia law to apply, but the default is their home country and the choice is also there.
Tim Elliot: Another area of change is groundbreaking, but in a completely different way in terms of oiling the wheels of bureaucracy, the opportunity to have an electronic notary public is a massive development, isn’t it?
Ludmila Yamalova: It is a massive development for somebody like you and me, who have lived in this country long enough to know how instrumental and important the notary public here is and that is (1) by virtue of our heavy reliance in this country on attested documents and notarized documents. (2) Also, because the U.A.E. is not a party to the Hague Convention, so therefore any foreign documents that are used in this country in any kind of official capacity would always have to go through this very serious attestation process called apostille or legalization to the different ministries and embassies and such. Those of us who have lived here long enough know that. Therefore, for example, anytime you needed to attest a document, even if it is a corporate document, you would have to go through this process of attestation legalization. That is because let’s say the shareholders of the company or the executives or the board members of the company are not based here, so how do you issue a board resolution without being here physically and attesting it before a notary?
Now the U.A.E. notaries have specific powers, and not just powers, I think it is almost like a mandate to now accept electronic signatures on documents and therefore process documents electronically. The presumption here is that from now notaries will have not just the authority, but also a mandate to legalize documents electronically which means you will no longer need to physically appear before the notary to legalize your document, your power of attorney, for example. You could be in a different country and work with a notary here who will attest these documents. This, in fact, is very positive in two ways: (1) The option will now become permanent and become part of our day-to-day life, (2) but also the U.A.E. during the COVID-19 pandemic has actually implemented this system and has been using it quite successfully. We have attested many documents exactly on that basis during the pandemic. It was not a very well-known fact or option, but this system has been implemented and has been tested. To us, this is very positive because it ultimately now takes a system that has been introduced perhaps initially temporarily and now makes it permanent. For many, many people here, I think having this option of attesting documents or notarizing documents electronically will be a cause for celebration.
Tim Elliot: Indeed. It can be a pain, to put it lightly, the notary situation.
Ludmila Yamalova: And expensive.
Tim Elliot: And expensive. Exactly. I’m going to come to the company law in a second. I want to ask you about that. But first of all, changes to bankruptcy law.
Ludmila Yamalova: Yes. As part of these amendments, the 200 pages that we mentioned before, there was also an amendment to a fairly recent issued bankruptcy law. In relevant terms, the amendment now includes a specific provision that allows for any kind of force majeure, causes of nature, and pandemics to be grounds for declaring or applying for bankruptcy. In other words, there is now a specific provision that says any kind of pandemic constitutes a legitimate ground to apply for bankruptcy. Before it was perhaps a matter of interpretation, but there is a specific provision so all those businesses who are either applying for bankruptcy or considering bankruptcy liquidation, because of COVID-19, now have a specific provision they can rely on in helping them deal with the already painful winding down of their companies.
Tim Elliot: It’s long been the case in the U.A.E. that you’ve been able to 100% own a company, but you always had to be in a free zone or a specific area of the country in one of the emirates. It’s now the case that an onshore company can be registered, and you can 100% own the company. That was an announcement that, I have to say, really took me back.
Ludmila Yamalova: Absolutely, 100%, and I have to tell you, we did not expect it. Now, statements to that effect had been made over the years and new company laws and amendments have been introduced over the years as well, but they always fell short of exactly what you just said. Even though the previous announcements would say, yes, yes, yes, we will do away with the requirement of having a local sponsor, but when the law was finally introduced, more or less, the system remained the same with a few exceptions. Well now, according to this new law, again, the law has been flipped upside down. Before the default rule was that in order to have a business in the U.A.E. it has to be owned by an emirate and in different percentages, but a minimum of 51%. That was the default rule. The exceptions were less. You had the free zones that were set up that were that exception that could be implemented, that is, you did not require a local sponsor. But remember, that is a default or an exception to a default law.
In 2019 there was a new amendment to company law that was introduced that kept that system in place, but it introduced what was called a positive list or a list of 100 activities which could benefit from ownership without requiring a local partner. In other words, the default law remained the same, but now there was a whole list of exceptions. There were certain activities that were exempted from having to have a local sponsor or a local partner.
Tim Elliot: Right.
Ludmila Yamalova: That’s why when we heard about this new supposed amendment coming forward, we didn’t quite expect what we see now. Now the law has been flipped upside down. Now there is no longer a requirement. That law has been taken off the books, the requirement of having a local sponsor or local agent. In fact, it says there is no longer a requirement to have a local sponsor or local agent except that there could be certain industries and certain areas of strategic importance to the country where certain emirates and certain authorities and ministries may want to regulate differently. Now the default is no more requirement of a local sponsor unless there is an exception, which is very different from before. Before the default was you require a sponsor unless there is an exception. This is quite huge. Now, how it’s going to take shape remains to be seen. The law was just published in the Official Gazette. The law itself does not come into effect until March 20, 2021, so another four months or so.
Tim Elliot: Ludmila, I guess the biggest change, the most surprising change is the normalization of relations with a country that’s been under embargo for as long as I can remember, and that normalization is with the state of Israel.
Ludmila Yamalova: Correct. We heard about the peace treaty and the peace accord that was signed a few months back. We’ve seen lots and lots of news updates and announcements of Israeli tourists coming to the country and planes landing and delegations being exchanged and such. But in legal terms, apart of this peace accord that was signed, we have not really seen the new legislation, if you will. Now as part of these amendments in the laws, again those were introduced just a few weeks ago, there is a new law or a new amendment cancelling the 1972 boycott law with Israel. Now there is in fact an amendment that cancels the law altogether, so there is no more law. It was that law, the boycott of the state of Israel, that ultimately made anything to do with Israel illegal. Now, that law has been completely cancelled off the books, so it doesn’t exist, which means that now the Israelis, predictably in light of the peace accord, Israelis can come into this country and benefit like the rest of the residents, expats, and businesses, not only for tourist purposes, not only for visits, but also to set up businesses, run businesses, live here, own properties, and enjoy all of the other benefits that this country has to offer. They are no longer different from the rest of the expats here. That’s a very interesting development because by virtue of these amendments the entire law has been just cancelled out. That is the amendment, that the law has been cancelled. That’s it.
Tim Elliot: What a year 2020 has been.
Ludmila Yamalova: As difficult and challenging as it has been, there has definitely been a silver lining. I would say from a legal perspective, as geeky and nerdy as it may sound, these amendments are a silver lining.
Tim Elliot: Geeky and nerdy suits you. Ludmila Yamalova is the Managing Partner of HPL Yamalova & Plewka. It’s a Dubai-based law firm in JLT. As ever, she is our incisive legal expert, and I thank you for your time.
Ludmila Yamalova: Tim, always a pleasure. Thank you.
Tim Elliot: If you have a legal question you’d like answered, we can do that in a future episode of Lawgical, or if you’d like a consultation with a qualified U.A.E. experienced legal professional, you can WhatsApp us at 00971 52 525 1611, or head to LYLawyers.com and click Contact.
