We use cookies for analytics to improve your experience. Privacy Policy
Formation through exit across sectors — construction consortia, PPP vehicles, technology JVs, real estate development JVs, cross-border market entry JVs. UAE LLC JVs, Saudi SPVs, DIFC partnerships, French JVs under SAS structure.
JV agreements are signed during the period of maximum mutual enthusiasm. They are tested during the period of maximum commercial pressure. The provisions that matter — deadlock, default, exit — are almost always the ones that received the least attention during negotiation..
The 50/50 JV board that cannot make a decision has a deadlock provision that says they should 'discuss in good faith.' That is not a resolution mechanism — it is a description of the problem. The partners who signed that clause are now discovering what it actually means: nothing.
Joint ventures concentrate every cross-border complexity into a single relationship: different legal traditions governing the same entity, different governance expectations around the same board table, different exit timelines for the same investment. The partners who negotiate the commercial terms in weeks often discover that the governance, deadlock, and exit provisions they rushed through in days are what determine whether the venture creates value or destroys it.
Under UAE Companies Law Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021, an LLC with a 50/50 shareholder structure has no default deadlock resolution mechanism — if neither party has majority, the company is in corporate paralysis until a court appoints a liquidator or the partners reach agreement. The JVA must provide the resolution mechanism that the law does not.
Saudi Companies Law (Royal Decree M/3 of 2022) requires that drag-along provisions in LLC shareholder agreements be specifically incorporated into the articles of association to be enforceable — provisions contained only in a shareholders' agreement but not reflected in the MOA are not binding on third-party transferees and may be unenforceable against the company itself.
The DIFC Partnership Law allows for limited partnerships with defined GP/LP structures that are increasingly used for real estate and private equity JVs — but the regulatory reporting requirements attached to DIFC entities are more onerous than for UAE mainland LLCs, and the DFSA may impose additional requirements depending on the partnership's activities.
Construction JV consortium agreements almost always treat the consortium as jointly and severally liable to the employer — the internal JV agreement's allocation of several liability between partners does not limit the employer's right to pursue any single consortium member for the full contract value and all associated delay damages.
A party that contributes proprietary technology to a JV without specifying the scope of the licence, the JV's sub-licensing rights, and the return of the technology on exit may find that the JV entity owns derivative works built on the contributed technology — and the contributing party has no right to recover them on termination.
Put/call options that use 'fair market value' as the trigger price without specifying the valuation methodology — EBITDA multiple, DCF, NAV, or independent expert determination — inevitably produce valuation disputes. 'Fair market value' is not a mechanism. It is an invitation to litigate.
Related Sectors
Related Services
The challenges you face
Every day we hear these concerns from CEOs, CFOs and general counsel across the GCC and Europe. If any of these sound familiar, you're not alone — and we can help.
A 50/50 JV board cannot agree on whether to accept a major contract variation on a construction project. The variation would increase the project budget by 35% but the client is offering an extension of time and additional margin. One partner wants to accept; the other does not. The JVA's deadlock provision says 'refer to senior management for resolution in good faith.' Senior management has been deadlocked for four months. The project is progressing — expenditure is being incurred that is outside the approved budget — without board authorisation. Under UAE Companies Law, neither partner has the majority vote required to approve the expenditure.
The project is incurring costs without board approval. The JV's bank is questioning whether the drawdown requests are authorised. The client is threatening termination for failure to execute the variation works. The JV entity is exposed to both a termination claim from the client and an unauthorised expenditure dispute between the partners. The deadlock provision has failed because 'discuss in good faith' is not a resolution mechanism — it is a restatement of what the partners are already unable to do.
A JV partner exercises a put option under the JVA at 'fair market value.' The exercising partner's valuation advisor values the interest at $85 million. The purchasing partner's advisor values it at $50 million — a 40% gap. The JVA does not specify a determination mechanism if the parties' valuations diverge. It does not define valuation methodology (EBITDA multiple, DCF, or NAV). It does not specify which financial statements to use as the basis. It does not appoint an independent expert or specify how one should be selected. The dispute has been in ICC arbitration for 18 months with no resolution in sight.
The put option — which was supposed to provide a clean exit — has instead created an 18-month arbitration. The JV is operationally paralysed because the exiting partner has withdrawn from active management but retains board voting rights. Legal costs have exceeded $3 million. The eventual arbitral award will impose a value that neither party agreed to — and both will consider unfair. The cost of drafting a proper valuation methodology clause at formation would have been less than 1% of the arbitration cost.
The majority JV partner (60%) unilaterally awarded a major subcontract worth $45 million to its own affiliate company — at a price that is approximately 30% above comparable market rates. The minority partner (40%) objected at the board level but was overridden by the majority's voting power. The JVA does not classify related-party transactions as reserved matters requiring unanimous approval. The majority partner's position is that subcontract awards are ordinary-course management decisions within its authority as the managing partner.
The minority partner is bearing 40% of a $13.5 million overpayment that benefits only the majority partner's affiliate. The JV's profitability is being diluted by the related-party pricing. The minority partner has no contractual veto right because related-party transactions were not included in the reserved matters list. The only remedy is a minority oppression claim under the applicable companies law — a proceeding that takes 12–24 months and requires the minority to prove that the majority acted in bad faith, not merely in its own commercial interest.
A JV partner has defaulted on its cash call obligation. The JV needs $20 million to fund the next phase of a construction project, and the defaulting partner's share is $10 million. The JVA's remedy for cash call default is to charge interest at EIBOR + 3% on the unpaid amount. The JVA does not provide for dilution of the defaulting partner's equity interest, does not permit the non-defaulting partner to acquire the defaulting partner's shares at a discount, and does not allow forfeiture of the defaulting partner's interest. The defaulting partner now has negative economic equity in the JV — its investment is worth less than its liabilities — but it retains equal voting rights and equal governance participation.
The non-defaulting partner must fund the entire cash call to keep the project alive — effectively lending money to its partner with no security other than an interest claim. The defaulting partner has no incentive to cure the default because its equity is already underwater. The project cannot proceed without the funding. The non-defaulting partner is trapped: it must pay the defaulting partner's share or lose the project. The JVA's interest remedy is commercially meaningless against a partner that has no intention of paying.
A construction consortium — structured as a contractual JV between a European contractor and a Saudi partner — won a major government contract in Saudi Arabia. After award, the Saudi government client requires the consortium to incorporate as an SPV under Saudi Companies Law to act as the contracting entity. The parties discover that their contractual JV agreement does not contain the provisions needed to establish the SPV: it does not specify the SPV's equity allocation, does not define the SPV's board composition or governance framework, does not address how the consortium members' rights and obligations under the contractual JV will transfer to the SPV, and does not address MISA licensing requirements for the foreign partner's equity participation.
The contract award is at risk because the client's SPV requirement is a condition of contract effectiveness. Negotiating the SPV terms from scratch takes 4–6 months — during which the client may award the contract to the reserve bidder. The partners disagree on the SPV equity split because the contractual JV's profit-sharing ratio (which was based on scope contribution) does not translate directly to an appropriate equity allocation. The MISA licence application for the foreign partner adds an additional 3 months. The total delay exceeds the client's patience.
Don't let these problems compound.
Let's solve them together.
We advise on the optimal legal structure for each JV: contractual JV versus incorporated entity (UAE LLC, Saudi SPV, DIFC limited partnership, French SAS), MISA licensing for foreign equity participation in Saudi SPVs, free zone versus mainland incorporation, and the regulatory and tax implications of each structural choice. For construction consortia, we address the joint and several liability allocation that is the defining structural risk of unincorporated JV arrangements.
We negotiate and draft shareholders' agreements covering equity contributions, profit-sharing, capital call obligations, management structures, reserved matters (including related-party transaction controls that require unanimous approval), anti-dilution provisions, information rights, and the full governance framework that prevents the disputes we have seen destroy JV value. We ensure that the SHA's protections are reflected in the MOA where required for enforceability against third parties under Saudi and UAE companies law.
We design deadlock resolution cascades calibrated to the specific commercial relationship: escalation to CEO/Chairman level with defined timeframes, mediation under ICC or DIAC rules, expert determination for technical or financial disputes, shotgun (Russian roulette) and Texas shoot-out buy-sell mechanisms for irreconcilable disagreements, and ultimately arbitration or court-ordered dissolution. The mechanism must match the partners' relative bargaining power, financial capacity, and exit appetite.
We design exit frameworks at JV formation — not as an afterthought after the relationship breaks down. Our exit provisions include put/call options with defined trigger events and valuation methodology (EBITDA multiple, DCF, or independent expert determination), drag-along and tag-along rights, rights of first refusal, IPO ratchets, and orderly wind-down mechanics. We specify the valuation methodology, the financial statements to be used, and the determination process if the parties' valuations diverge — the provisions that prevent the 18-month arbitration over 'fair market value.'
When JV relationships break down, we represent partners in deadlock disputes, breach-of-JVA claims, minority oppression actions, cash call enforcement, related-party transaction challenges, valuation disputes on exit, forced buy-outs, and dissolution proceedings. We apply the contractual mechanisms in the JVA first, and where these are absent or inadequate, pursue statutory remedies under the applicable companies law — including court-ordered liquidation under UAE Companies Law and minority protection claims under Saudi Companies Law.
A contractual JV is an agreement between the parties to cooperate on a specific project without forming a new legal entity. Each party retains its own legal identity and is responsible for its own scope, tax obligations, and liabilities (though joint and several liability to the client is common in construction consortia). An incorporated JV creates a new legal entity — an LLC, SPV, or partnership — with its own separate legal personality, assets, contracts, and employees. Use a contractual JV for defined-scope construction projects, temporary collaborations, and situations where the parties want to avoid the cost and regulatory requirements of forming a new company. Use an incorporated JV when the venture requires its own contracts, employees, bank accounts, and licences — particularly for long-term commercial operations, regulated activities, or projects requiring MISA licensing in Saudi Arabia.
If the JVA contains a deadlock resolution cascade, follow it: typically escalation to senior management, then mediation, then a buy-sell mechanism (shotgun/Russian roulette or Texas shoot-out). If the JVA's deadlock provision is limited to 'discuss in good faith' — which is not a resolution mechanism — the options are: negotiate a buy-sell directly with the other partner, apply to the court for dissolution of the company under the applicable companies law (UAE Companies Law Article 329 allows dissolution for 'grave reasons' including deadlock), or seek to appoint an interim administrator to manage the JV pending resolution. The buy-sell mechanisms require careful analysis: a shotgun clause gives one partner the right to name a price, and the other must either buy at that price or sell at that price — which means the partner with more liquidity has a structural advantage.
Three mechanisms work together: a right of first refusal (ROFR) requiring the selling partner to offer its interest to the other partner first, on the same terms offered by the third party; a right of first offer (ROFO) requiring the selling partner to offer its interest to the other partner before approaching third parties; and a change-of-control provision that treats an indirect transfer of the parent company's shares as a deemed transfer of the JV interest, triggering the same consent and pre-emption rights. The change-of-control clause is critical — without it, a partner can sell its parent company to a competitor and the JV interest transfers indirectly without triggering any restrictions in the JVA.
A shotgun clause (also called a Russian roulette clause) is a deadlock-breaking buy-sell mechanism. When triggered, one partner serves a notice naming a price per share. The receiving partner must then either buy the triggering partner's shares at that price, or sell its own shares to the triggering partner at that same price. The mechanism forces fairness because the triggering partner does not know whether it will be buying or selling — so it must name a price it considers fair in both directions. The risk is that the partner with greater liquidity has an advantage: it can trigger the mechanism at a price the other partner cannot afford to match, effectively forcing a sale. For this reason, shotgun clauses should include minimum notice periods, financing provisions, and restrictions on triggering during specified periods such as ongoing projects or capital calls.
The answer depends entirely on the JVA's cash call default provisions. Strong JVAs provide escalating remedies: interest on the unpaid amount, suspension of the defaulting partner's voting rights and distribution entitlements, dilution of the defaulting partner's equity interest (either automatic or at the non-defaulting partner's election), and ultimately a forced transfer of the defaulting partner's interest at a discount to book value. If the JVA's only remedy is to charge interest — as many poorly drafted JVAs provide — the non-defaulting partner has very limited practical leverage against a partner that has no intention of paying. In that situation, the non-defaulting partner may need to fund the entire amount to keep the project alive and pursue a separate claim for the defaulting partner's share — effectively an unsecured debt claim against a party that may have no incentive to settle.
GSDA structured our consortium arrangement for a Gulf infrastructure project — handling the inter-partner liability allocation, the interface with the FIDIC contract, and the governance framework. When a scope dispute arose between the partners, the mechanisms they designed resolved it in six weeks without arbitration.
CEO — European Engineering Conglomerate, Middle East Division
Insights
The GSDA advantage
We have structured JVs between European and Middle Eastern partners since 1984 — contractual JVs, incorporated SPVs, construction consortia, technology JVs — across UAE mainland, DIFC, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and France. That depth means we draft for the failure modes we have actually seen, not the ones we read about.
Every JV we structure begins with the governance framework: deadlock resolution cascades, reserved matter lists, related-party transaction controls, and exit mechanisms. We design for the disagreements that will happen, not the alignment that exists at signing. The governance provisions are what determine whether a JV creates value or destroys it.
We structure consortium arrangements for GCC construction and infrastructure mega-projects, understanding joint and several liability allocation, inter-partner indemnity mechanics, bonding requirements, and the practical interface between the consortium agreement and the main EPC contract — specifics that general corporate lawyers do not address.
Our offices
Our joint ventures team operates from offices in France, the Gulf, and North Africa — ensuring local expertise wherever your business needs it.
Saudi Arabia Practice
Five offices across the Kingdom — Riyadh, Jeddah, Dammam, Makkah & Madinah — serving Vision 2030 giga-projects, MISA-licensed foreign investors, and international contractors.
Knowledge hub
Key legal terms for joint ventures