A Restructuring Has Started Outside the DIFC: Does Your DIFC Claim Stop?

No. A restructuring or insolvency order made by a court outside the DIFC does not stop a DIFC Courts claim on its own. Proceedings against the debtor are stayed only once the DIFC Court recognises the foreign insolvency proceeding under Schedule 4 of the Insolvency Law, DIFC Law No. 1 of 2019. Recognition needs three things: a debtor that is a body corporate incorporated outside the DIFC, an applicant who is the authorised representative in that proceeding, and a collective insolvency proceeding supervised by a foreign court. Recognition as a foreign main proceeding brings the automatic stay in Article 20 of the Schedule. Recognition as a non-main proceeding brings only the discretionary relief in Article 21. Until an order is made the DIFC claim and its deadlines keep running, so a company that stops responding is exposed to default and to immediate judgment.

Official DIFC Courts papers show both outcomes. In Altamimi v Emirates NBD Bank [2021] DIFC CFI 085, judgment of 11 February 2022, trustees appointed in an Abu Dhabi restructuring asked the Court to recognise that process and to stay five sets of DIFC proceedings against an individual debtor and 29 parties joined to his case. Every remedy was refused. In the NMC group matters of late 2020 the Court recognised an English administration and the Article 20 stay took effect at a stated hour, as a consent order later recited. The difference lay in who the debtor was, and the table below is where that question is answered.

Which law governs recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding in the DIFC?

The Insolvency Law, DIFC Law No. 1 of 2019, which repealed and replaced the 2009 Law. It was enacted on 30 May 2019 and commenced on 13 June 2019, and the DIFC legal database serves Consolidated Version No. 3 of July 2025.

Article 117(3) is the gateway. It gives the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, modified for the DIFC, force here in respect of Foreign Companies, and applies the rest of the Law with such modification as the context requires. The modified Model Law is Schedule 4. Article 4 assigns recognition and cooperation to the Court, and Article 8 directs that it be read with regard to its international origin and to the Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Article 117(1) is a separate and narrower power, under which the Court assists the court of a Foreign Company's place of incorporation, on request, in gathering and remitting assets held in the DIFC.

There is no bespoke procedure. The Insolvency Regulations, Consolidated Version No. 2 in force from 8 March 2024, say nothing about recognition applications, and Part 54 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts has no section for them. Altamimi was brought under the Part 8 procedure, available where a question is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact.

Which debtors can Schedule 4 reach?

Only bodies corporate incorporated outside the DIFC. Schedule 1 takes the term Foreign Company from the Companies Law, which defines it as a body corporate incorporated in any jurisdiction other than the DIFC. In Altamimi the Court read Schedule 4 against the Law as a whole and noted that nowhere does the Law provide for the bankruptcy of an individual, because voluntary arrangements, rehabilitation, administration, receivership and winding up apply only to corporate bodies (paragraph 20). Article 117 controls the operation of the Schedule, so its reference to an individual's habitual residence as a presumed centre of main interests is nothing to the point (paragraph 24). An individual debtor cannot seek recognition or a stay under the Model Law as enacted here, and any stay for an individual must rest on another statutory provision or on case management powers (paragraph 25).

The cards summarise the threshold the Court applied before it reached any question of discretion.

Why does the DIFC Court look at each company rather than the group?

Because Schedule 4 recognises a proceeding in respect of a debtor, and relief follows the debtor. Article 17(2) recognises a main proceeding where the debtor has the centre of its main interests and a non-main proceeding where it has an establishment. In Altamimi the Abu Dhabi commencement order named one debtor, an individual, and brought in a second individual and 28 companies as joined parties under a provision of the federal law then in force allowing joinder where assets overlapped or separate proceedings would not be practical or feasible in terms of cost (paragraphs 3, 5 and 16). The joined companies were not characterised as debtors. The Court held that there was no room for recognition where there was no corporate debtor to which the Schedule could apply, and that companies not classified as debtors in Abu Dhabi could not be so classified here (paragraphs 27 and 28). The application failed in limine, and so did the stay built on it.

Of the 28 corporate joined parties, eighteen were incorporated in onshore Dubai, two in both Abu Dhabi and Dubai and eight in Abu Dhabi, and fourteen defendants across two of the DIFC actions were not joined parties at all (paragraph 32). Each company had to be considered separately, and recognition might have been possible for some but not others (paragraph 33). So the first document to build is a list of every entity named in the DIFC claims, with its place of incorporation and its status abroad.

Common mistake. Treating a group restructuring as a shield for every company in the group. In Altamimi the DIFC Court looked for a debtor within the meaning of the Schedule, found only an individual, and declined to treat 28 companies joined for overlapping assets as debtors whose proceedings could be recognised.

Who is the foreign representative, and is the process abroad a foreign proceeding?

Article 2(d) defines the foreign representative as a person or body, including one appointed on an interim basis, authorised in a foreign proceeding to administer the reorganisation or liquidation of the debtor's assets or affairs or to act as a representative of that proceeding. Article 15(1) allows that representative to apply for recognition of the proceeding in which the appointment was made. Article 9 gives direct access to the Court and Article 10 confirms that applying does not submit the representative or the debtor's foreign assets to the Court's jurisdiction for any other purpose. The debtor company cannot apply.

Two points in Altamimi turned on that definition. The claim form was issued by one trustee after the Abu Dhabi court had appointed two more to sit with him, so he could not be the foreign representative alone, the panel's authority had not been obtained, and the others were joined only on the day of the hearing (paragraphs 8, 10 and 12). And no order for reorganisation or liquidation had been made, the trustees' functions being to gather information, list creditors and put proposals to the creditors and the court, so the Court could not be satisfied that they were authorised to administer any reorganisation, a conclusion it called a narrow distinction reached without enthusiasm and of lesser significance than the more fundamental issues (paragraph 18). The application failed for absence of locus, though the Court accepted that the trustees might become the foreign representative in due course (paragraph 19).

The process itself cleared its own definition. Article 2(a) covers an interim proceeding, so the Court accepted that the Abu Dhabi commencement proceeding was a foreign proceeding even though the debtor continued to run his businesses with the trustees' permission and no reorganisation had been ordered (paragraphs 14 and 17). Where the foreign decision or certificate shows that the proceeding and the representative fall within the definitions, the Court may presume so (Article 16).

How do I prove centre of main interests or an establishment?

Company by company, from material the Court can test. The Schedule does not define the centre of main interests. Article 16(3) presumes, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the debtor's registered office is that centre. An establishment is any place of operations where the debtor carries out a non-transitory economic activity with human means and goods or services (Article 2(f)). The classification decides the relief, because a main proceeding attracts the automatic stay and a non-main proceeding only discretionary relief.

The Court in Altamimi drew on international authorities for the indicators it would weigh: where the debtor conducts its regular business so that third parties can ascertain it, the location of headquarters, decision-makers, assets, creditors and the law applicable to most disputes, where litigation involving the entity takes place, and whether the proceeding has been recognised as a main proceeding elsewhere (paragraph 31). It then held in the alternative that the evidence was unsatisfactory. A table produced by one trustee was not reliable and its source was unknown. Licences showed that the Dubai-incorporated borrowers operated in Dubai, which supported the presumption, and defendants who had started onshore Dubai proceedings had given addresses for service there. Letters sent to the group's Abu Dhabi headquarters did not show that Abu Dhabi was those entities' centre of main interests (paragraph 32). On the evidence the majority did not have their centre there, and if each company's centre became crucial, greater enquiry would be needed than a Part 8 application had produced (paragraph 33).

What does recognition stop, and what carries on?

On recognition of a foreign main proceeding, Article 20(1) stays individual actions and proceedings concerning the debtor's assets, rights, obligations or liabilities, stays execution against its assets, and suspends the right to dispose of them. Article 20(2) gives that stay the same scope and effect as the moratorium under Article 88(2), which bars any action or proceeding against a company in compulsory winding up, or against its property, except by leave of the Court. The stay does not affect rights to take steps to enforce security, to repossess goods in the debtor's possession, or a creditor's right of set-off, nor the right to ask for a DIFC insolvency proceeding or file claims in one (Article 20(2) and (3)).

The Court keeps control. Under Article 20(4) it may, on the application of the representative or of any person affected, or of its own motion, modify or terminate the stay on terms. For a non-main proceeding, and for anything the automatic stay does not cover, Article 21 lets the Court grant appropriate relief where necessary to protect the debtor's assets or the creditors' interests, though for a non-main proceeding that relief must relate to assets which under DIFC law should be administered in it or to information it requires. In granting, denying, modifying or terminating relief the Court must be satisfied that creditors and other interested persons, including the debtor, are adequately protected, and it may impose conditions (Article 22). In Altamimi the Court said the essential criterion for lifting or imposing a stay is what is right and fair in all the circumstances, and that the practical difference between the two routes is where the burden lies, since an automatic stay puts it on the party resisting the stay (paragraph 35).

Recognition also opens powers beyond the stay. The representative may participate in a DIFC insolvency proceeding regarding the debtor, intervene in any proceeding to which the debtor is a party, obtain orders for the delivery of information about the debtor's assets and affairs, and be entrusted with the administration, realisation or even the distribution of DIFC assets if creditors here are adequately protected (Articles 12, 21 and 24). Where a DIFC insolvency proceeding is already running when the application is filed, Article 29(a) requires relief to be consistent with it and provides that Article 20 does not apply at all.

Before the decision there is only Article 19. From filing until the application is determined the Court may, where relief is urgently needed to protect the debtor's assets or the creditors' interests, grant provisional relief such as a stay of execution or the entrusting of perishable DIFC assets to the representative. That relief ends when the application is decided unless extended.

Has the DIFC Court ever recognised a foreign process and stopped a claim?

Yes. A consent order of 24 November 2020 in CFI 056/2020 records that NMC Health PLC, incorporated in England and Wales, was placed in administration by the English High Court on 9 April 2020, that NMC Healthcare LLC, incorporated in Dubai, was continued into the Abu Dhabi Global Market, where an ADGM administration order was made on 27 September 2020, and that both sets of administrators filed recognition applications in the DIFC Courts on 20 October 2020. On 10 November 2020 the Court directed that the English administration be recognised as a foreign main proceeding under Schedule 4, that the English administrators be recognised as foreign representatives, and that the automatic relief under Article 20 take effect from 10.35am that day. The claim against the English company was stayed automatically.

The Dubai-incorporated company was treated differently. The ADGM administrators were recorded as entitled to the active assistance of the DIFC Courts, and the claim against that company was stayed by agreement until the end of its ADGM administration, with liberty to apply if the English company's stay is lifted. An earlier consent order of 9 November 2020 in CFI 079/2020 had stayed a different claim against the group by agreement only until the recognition application was determined. The recognition orders were made in separate claims and are described here from the recitals in these consent orders. Recognition produced an automatic stay for one entity, while the stay against the Dubai-incorporated company came from agreement. These orders do not record what the Court directed on the ADGM administrators' own application.

Deadline warning. The Article 20 stay arises on recognition, not on filing, and interim protection before the decision has to be asked for under Article 19. In Altamimi, judgment had already been entered in two of the five DIFC actions before the recognition claim was heard, and the launching of the application, the failure to serve it and the delaying tactics adopted all counted against the trustees.

If recognition is refused, can the Court stay the case anyway?

The trustees in Altamimi argued that it could, under three further heads, and lost on each. Cooperation under Articles 25 to 27 can in principle include a stay to coordinate proceedings, but those Articles are as inapplicable as the recognition provisions where there is no corporate debtor, and granting a stay where the Law's preconditions are not met would achieve by the back door what the front door did not permit (paragraphs 46 to 48). Additional assistance under other DIFC laws, preserved by Article 7, fared no better. The Judicial Authority Law provisions then relied on applied where the subject matter of execution is situated in the DIFC, and the Abu Dhabi decision to stay proceedings was a procedural decision of that court with no extra-territorial effect here, to which no process of execution could apply and which was not an order in rem (paragraphs 49 and 50). Apart from a case where a statute mandates it, a stay of DIFC proceedings is a procedural decision for the DIFC Court alone (paragraph 51). To stay proceedings in the chosen forum on the strength of a foreign process that had reached no approved scheme of reorganisation or order for liquidation would subvert the legislation (paragraph 52), and case management powers gave the same answer (paragraph 54).

The Court added that the trustees' conduct did not deserve indulgence and that what they sought was not merely breathing space (paragraph 57). The central reasoning is statutory: the Insolvency Law states when a foreign insolvency stays DIFC proceedings, and the general powers of the Court were not used to extend it.

How should a creditor respond to a recognition application?

Start with standing and scope, because they decided Altamimi before any question of discretion arose. Check that every person appointed abroad is a claimant and that the application is authorised. Check that the entity you are suing is a body corporate incorporated outside the DIFC and a debtor in its own right abroad, not a party joined for overlapping assets. Ask for the Article 15(2) and 15(3) material and test it. Then test the classification, because the Article 16(3) presumption favours the registered office and displacing it takes company-specific evidence.

If recognition is likely, the argument moves to the terms. Article 20(4) and the Article 88(2) leave requirement allow a creditor affected by a stay to seek its modification or termination for a particular claim, and Altamimi shows the kind of consideration that weighs. A genuine issue of fact, there an allegation that a guarantee signature was forged, is better tried in a court with disclosure, cross-examination and expert evidence than in a representatives' claims review with a short grievance procedure in which the adverse party is not heard (paragraph 44), and determining the liability of borrowers and guarantors together in one binding decision makes obvious sense (paragraph 37). Filing proofs of debt abroad with a full reservation of rights, and objecting to the representative's appointment there, did not amount to accepting the foreign court's power to stay DIFC proceedings (paragraph 51).

Costs are a real exposure for an unsuccessful applicant. By an order with reasons of 28 March 2022 the trustees were ordered to pay the objecting parties' costs on the indemnity basis, because their conduct of the litigation took the case away from the norm, assessed in five separate sums together a little over USD 375,000 and AED 737,000. Whether they could recover that liability in Abu Dhabi was not a question for the DIFC Court.

What should the recognition application contain?

Standing, each debtor, the Article 15(2) and 15(3) material and precise relief. The sequence follows the Schedule and the gaps the Court identified. It is written for the representative, but a creditor can use it as a checklist of what to demand.

1. Confirm that every person appointed abroad joins as claimant and that the body holding the authority has resolved to apply (paragraphs 8, 10 and 12).
2. Identify each debtor by name and place of incorporation, and confirm that each is a body corporate incorporated outside the DIFC and a debtor in its own right abroad (Article 117(3)).
3. Assemble the Article 15(2) evidence: a certified copy of the decision commencing the proceeding and appointing the representative, a certificate from the foreign court affirming both, or other evidence acceptable to the Court.
4. Prepare the Article 15(3) statement identifying every foreign and DIFC proceeding in respect of the debtor known to the representative, with translations if required.
5. For each debtor, assemble evidence of the registered office and of the facts said to establish a centre of main interests or an establishment abroad, from sources the Court can test.
6. State the relief sought precisely: recognition as a main or a non-main proceeding, the Article 20 stay or Article 21 relief, any Article 19 interim relief with evidence of urgency, and how creditors and the debtor are adequately protected.
7. Issue the claim under the Part 8 procedure and serve every affected party to the DIFC proceedings without waiting to be ordered to do so (paragraph 9).
8. Keep the Court informed of any substantial change in the proceeding or the appointment (Article 18), and be ready for the early decision Article 17(3) requires.

Can I work out in advance whether a recognition application will succeed?

Reading the judgment beside the Schedule, the striking thing is how little of the outcome depended on discretion and how much was settled by three structural questions: who applied, who the debtor was, and what the evidence showed about each company. The trustees lost on the first two, and on the third in the alternative, before the Court reached conduct, and the practical arguments ran against them too, because there were no known assets in the DIFC to execute against and the Court thought determinations of liability in the chosen forum would facilitate rather than obstruct any restructuring or liquidation (paragraphs 38, 45 and 53). A representative who maps every entity in the DIFC claims against Article 117(3) and Article 17(2) before filing, and who waits until the foreign court's orders actually confer authority to administer a reorganisation, avoids the arguments that consumed that hearing. A creditor who runs the same map in reverse usually knows, before instructing anyone to oppose, whether the application can succeed at all, and if it can, whether the better course is to accept recognition and ask for the stay to be lifted for the claim in hand. That is the cheaper argument, and the statute invites it.

The cards restate what a recognition order does and does not change.

What has changed since Altamimi was decided?

Nothing that disturbs the Schedule 4 analysis. The Insolvency Law has been amended three times since the judgment, by the DIFC Laws Amendment Laws of 2022, 2024 and 2025. Only the first reached Part 7, and it reproduced Article 117 without alteration while deleting a separate article on the outstanding property of a defunct Recognised Company. Neither later amendment mentions Article 117 or Schedule 4, so the Court's construction applies to the current consolidated text.

The Courts law relied on in part of the alternative argument has gone. Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, in the Dubai Official Gazette of 14 March 2025, supersedes Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004 and DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004 (Article 43). The Court of First Instance's jurisdiction over insolvency claims is now in Article 19(B)(1), and the Court's power to stay the enforcement of any decision, order or proceeding is in Article 24(E). Articles 29 to 33 put enforcement under an Enforcement Judge whose jurisdiction extends to judgments and judicial decisions of foreign or local courts where enforcement falls on an entity within the DIFC. Whether Article 24(E) or that jurisdiction changes the position of a foreign court's procedural stay order has not been decided in any source checked for this guide.

The onshore federal framework has also changed. The Abu Dhabi process ran under what the judgment calls Federal Decree No. 9 of 2016. The UAE government's official portal now identifies Federal Decree-Law No. 51 of 2023 promulgating the Financial and Bankruptcy Law, with executive regulations under Cabinet Resolution No. 94 of 2024, and records that it reaches companies under the Commercial Companies Law, a natural person with the capacity of a trader and licensed professional civil companies, but not free-zone companies that follow their own rules. An onshore order has to be read against that law before anyone assumes the debtor-and-joined-party analysis repeats itself.

As to the case itself, the judgment of 11 February 2022 was re-issued three times, finally on 31 March 2022, and the published versions carry an identical body. Every source cited here was checked on 3 October 2026. Bounded searches of the court's own site found no appeal and no later published DIFC decision applying Schedule 4 to a recognition application, though such searches are not a court-file certification.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a court order from another emirate or another country automatically stop my DIFC claim? No. In Altamimi the DIFC Court held that a foreign court's stay is a procedural decision with no extra-territorial effect in the DIFC. A DIFC claim stops only if the DIFC Court recognises the foreign proceeding under Schedule 4 and the stay in Article 20 or relief under Article 21 follows.

Can my company apply for recognition of its own foreign restructuring? No. Article 15(1) of the Schedule gives the application to the foreign representative appointed in the proceeding, and in Altamimi earlier stay applications by the defendants themselves had been dismissed for want of locus. The representative, with the authority of everyone appointed, must bring the claim.

We are a group. Does recognition of the parent's proceeding stay claims against the subsidiaries? Only for an entity that is itself a debtor in the foreign proceeding and whose own centre of main interests or establishment is proved. In Altamimi 28 companies joined for overlapping assets, but not treated as debtors, obtained nothing.

What is the difference between a foreign main and a foreign non-main proceeding? A main proceeding takes place where the debtor has its centre of main interests, presumed to be the registered office, and brings the automatic stay in Article 20. A non-main proceeding takes place where the debtor has only an establishment and brings discretionary relief under Article 21, confined to assets that should be administered in that proceeding.

Does the stay stop a secured creditor from enforcing security? No. Article 20(2) provides that the stay does not affect rights to take steps to enforce security, to repossess goods in the debtor's possession, or a creditor's right of set-off. The same carve-outs limit any Article 21 relief the Court is asked to grant.

Can the DIFC Court lift the stay for my claim? Yes. Article 20(4) lets the Court modify or terminate the stay for any affected person on terms, Article 88(2) lets the Court give leave for an action to continue on such terms as it imposes, and the Court in Altamimi said the test is what is right and fair according to all the circumstances.

If I file a proof of debt in the foreign process, do I lose the right to oppose a stay in the DIFC? Not on the Altamimi reasoning. Filing proofs with a full reservation of rights, and objecting to the representative's appointment, did not amount to accepting the foreign court's power to stay DIFC proceedings or to a waiver of the right to resist a stay.

What happens to costs if the recognition application fails? Costs follow the event. In Altamimi the trustees were ordered to pay the objecting parties' costs on the indemnity basis because of their conduct of the litigation, assessed in five separate sums, and whether they could recover those costs in the Abu Dhabi process was left to that process.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice on your specific situation.

Related Guides

See the Dubai and DIFC business and governance section and these related guides.

• Responding when your opponent wants DIFC judgment without a trial
• A bank demanding the company's debt from you personally
• Whether a DIFC freezing order is available when a debtor moves assets

Related Guides

Our DIFC Court disputes page covers jurisdiction, service, default judgment and setting aside, immediate judgment, disclosure, costs and appeals under the Rules of the DIFC Courts.

• A Creditor Is Threatening to Wind Up Your DIFC Company Over a Debt You Dispute
• You Won a DIFC Judgment but Cannot Find the Debtor's Assets
• Old DIFC Debt: Check the Deadline Before Waiting for Payment