Five GCC SHA landmines founders keep stepping on — and the structural fixes that actually work.
A term sheet is a handshake with footnotes. A shareholders' agreement is the contract that outlives the romance.
Every protection you negotiated in the term sheet — control, information, exit economics, anti-dilution, reserved matters — only becomes real when it is drafted, signed, and enforceable inside the SHA.
In the GCC, that last word does most of the work.
The same SHA clause can be bulletproof in DIFC, merely persuasive in ADGM, and legally inert onshore. Founders who treat the SHA as a translation exercise from the term sheet — rather than a jurisdiction-specific engineering job — tend to discover the gap at exactly the moment they cannot afford to.
This article is about that gap. Not a clause-by-clause primer — those are everywhere. A focused look at where GCC-specific jurisdictional quirks quietly neutralise SHA protections that work in London, New York, or Singapore, and what that means for founders and funds operating across DIFC, ADGM, and the onshore UAE.
The SHA is the only document that converts term-sheet leverage into enforceable rights. In the GCC, the choice of legal seat (DIFC, ADGM, or onshore) changes which of those rights survive contact with a dispute. Draft the SHA for the jurisdiction you will have to enforce it in, not the jurisdiction the investor's template was written for.
Why the SHA carries more weight in the GCC than elsewhere
In mature common-law markets, the SHA sits alongside a well-developed body of company law that already protects minority shareholders, regulates board conduct, and governs share transfers by default. The SHA adds bespoke commercial terms on top of that scaffolding.
The GCC picture is more fragmented. Three very different legal systems sit within a few kilometres of each other:
DIFC — an independent common-law jurisdiction with its own courts, its own company law, and a judiciary drawn largely from senior common-law benches. ADGM — directly applies the common law of England and Wales, with its own courts and regulator; broadly similar in effect to DIFC but with material drafting and procedural differences. Onshore UAE — civil-law based; governed principally by Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021 on Commercial Companies (the CCL), with mandatory rules that can override private contracting.
That matters because the SHA is the place those differences collide. The same five-page term sheet can produce three very different SHAs depending on where the company is incorporated (and founders regularly sign the wrong one for their structure).
The same SHA clause, three different outcomes
The table below sets out how six common SHA features hold up across the three dominant UAE jurisdictions. It is not exhaustive, but it is the shortlist of issues that most often determines whether an SHA is worth the paper it is printed on.
DIFC and ADGM are broadly peer jurisdictions for SHA enforceability. Onshore UAE is a different exercise entirely. Five GCC SHA landmines founders keep stepping on
These are the recurring drafting failures I see. Not exotic edge cases. The mistakes that cost founders control, economics, or both.
Landmine 1 — Reserved matters that collide with the CCL
Reserved matters lists are the investor's primary control lever: a schedule of decisions the company cannot take without investor consent. In DIFC and ADGM, that list is a matter of contract; if the SHA says it, the court will generally enforce it.
Onshore, several decisions are reserved by statute to particular corporate organs (the general assembly, the board, the manager), with specific majority thresholds. An SHA that purports to hand veto rights to a single investor over matters the CCL reserves to the general assembly is not just awkward: it is, in parts, unenforceable. Investors sometimes accept this and rely on the contractual damages route. Founders should know they are signing something with asymmetric enforcement risk.
The founder risk: You negotiate tight reserved matters thinking they constrain the investor. Onshore, the statutory framework may constrain you — while leaving the investor free to pursue damages for breach of the SHA if you exercise a right the CCL actually gives you. Landmine 2 — Drag-along rights that cannot drag
Drag-along is a fund's exit insurance: when a majority agrees to sell, the minority must sell on the same terms. In DIFC and ADGM, a properly drafted drag clause is enforceable against a dissenting minority, including against founders.
Onshore, share transfers in an LLC are historically subject to unanimity or pre-emption rights that sit in the CCL and the MoA, not in the SHA. Drag clauses that work in DIFC can be frustrated onshore by a single dissenting shareholder refusing to sign the transfer instrument.
The workaround (such as powers of attorney, pre-signed transfer forms, escrow structures) needs to be engineered into the SHA from day one, not retrofitted at exit.
Recommended by LinkedIn Dispute settlement in EUVIPA – A mechanism to outdate… Bao Nguyen 6 years ago The Rise (and Rise) of In-House Counsel across the GCC Ben Cockram 8 years ago 🇺🇬 Uganda’s Competition Act 2023: Where’s the… Mercy Odu 11 months ago Landmine 3 — Pre-emption rights the SHA thinks it has waived
SHAs routinely contain clauses waiving pre-emption rights to accommodate new investor rounds, ESOP top-ups, or strategic issuances. In DIFC and ADGM, a clearly drafted waiver is effective.
Onshore, certain pre-emption protections arise from statute and the MoA. Waiving them purely through the SHA, without corresponding amendments to the MoA and, where required, regulator-facing filings, leaves a gap. A shareholder can later argue the waiver is ineffective because the statutory right was never properly disapplied through the constitutional document.
That argument rarely surfaces in good times. It always surfaces in a down round.
Landmine 4 — Dispute resolution clauses that buy the wrong courtroom
An SHA is only as strong as the forum that will enforce it. Three errors recur:
Mismatched seat. An onshore UAE entity with an SHA governed by DIFC law and DIFC Courts — sometimes fine, sometimes an invitation to a jurisdictional challenge at the worst possible moment. Arbitration clauses that do not survive translation. Onshore enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has improved materially, but drafting still matters, particularly around the seat, institution, and language of the proceedings. Carve-outs that swallow the clause. SHAs that send commercial disputes to arbitration but leave "urgent relief" to local courts frequently create parallel proceedings in a real dispute. Expensive and disclosable.
Landmine 5 — Information rights that give investors more than the board
Information rights look innocuous. They are not.
Broad, unqualified information rights, monthly management accounts, board papers, access to all material contracts, unfettered audit rights can, in practice, give a minority investor earlier and better information than the founder-CEO's own board. In a disputed round, in a secondary sale, or in a downside scenario, that asymmetry becomes leverage.
In DIFC and ADGM, information obligations run with the contract and are enforceable through the usual common-law tools. Onshore, the practical difficulty is different: if the SHA gives an investor information rights that conflict with confidentiality obligations owed to regulators, customers, or other shareholders, the founder carries the breach risk, not the investor.
GCC practice point: Information rights should be scoped by purpose (monitoring their investment), time-limited (falling away at a certain ownership threshold or on an IPO), and qualified by customary confidentiality and regulatory carve-outs. "Standard" information rights in a US template are almost never standard for a UAE operating company. Structural fixes that actually work
None of this means onshore companies cannot have strong SHAs, or that DIFC and ADGM SHAs are bulletproof. It means the SHA has to be drafted knowing what the surrounding law will do with it.
Four structural fixes consistently improve the odds:
Align the SHA with the constitutional document. In the onshore UAE especially, the MoA or AoA must do the work the SHA cannot — pre-emption waivers, transfer restrictions, bespoke quorum and majority thresholds. An SHA that contradicts the MoA will lose. Match jurisdiction to enforcement reality. If the operating business, the assets, and the counterparties are all onshore, a DIFC-seated arbitration may still be right — but only if the award-enforcement route is genuinely clear. Do not choose the seat your investor's template chose. Treat drag and transfer mechanics as engineering. Powers of attorney, pre-signed transfer forms, escrow arrangements, holding-company restructures — all legitimate tools, all need to be designed before the first dispute. Front-load the founder-protective clauses. Good leaver / bad leaver definitions, founder vesting cliffs, board removal thresholds, and founder consent rights are easier to calibrate at Seed and Series A than to renegotiate at Series B when the cap table has lost interest.
Ten questions before you sign
If you cannot answer any of these cleanly, stop and get advice.
Which jurisdiction governs the SHA, and which courts or tribunal will hear a dispute? Does that match where my assets and business actually sit? Are the reserved matters enforceable against my corporate structure, or do some collide with statutory powers I cannot contract out of? If the majority agrees to sell, can the drag-along actually compel the minority — or does execution rely on a shareholder signing a transfer form they may refuse to sign? Has every SHA waiver of pre-emption, transfer restriction, or quorum rule been reflected in the MoA or AoA? What information is the investor entitled to, for how long, and subject to what confidentiality carve-outs? What triggers good leaver and bad leaver status for me as a founder, and who decides which applies? What is the board composition at signing, and how does it change on dilution, founder removal, or a new round? What consent rights do I retain as a founder — and do they fall away on termination of employment, a liquidity event, or a dilution threshold? Is there a deadlock mechanism, and does it realistically protect the company rather than just the majority? If the relationship breaks down in three years, which clauses actually survive, and which evaporate on the first jurisdictional challenge?
The bottom line
The term sheet tells you what the deal is. The SHA tells you whether the deal holds. In the GCC, it also tells you whether the deal is enforceable in the place it matters.
Investors negotiate SHAs every week. Founders, usually, negotiate one or two in their career and the cost of getting them wrong is measured in control, not just economics.
The time to engineer the SHA is before the signatures, not after the first disagreement.
#Startups #GCC #MENA #ShareholdersAgreement #DIFC #ADGM #UAE #VentureCapital #Founders #AILaw #LegalTech
The Legal Rooms
The Legal Rooms
Share this article