In recent weeks, Egypt’s legislature passed a bill enabling the creation of the Egyptian Export and Investment Guarantee Agency (EEIGA) and said it would replace the existing Export Credit Guarantee Company of Egypt (EGE).

The Central Bank of Egypt will acquire all of the agency’s shares from existing shareholders, including the Egyptian development lender, Ebank, as well as the National Investment Bank, which hold stakes of 70% and 22% respectively.

While the financing capacity of the ECA is yet to be confirmed, GTR understands that there will be an overhaul of the management and governance structure and the agency is slated to begin operations in the first quarter of 2024.

The ECA will initially target short-term receivables and trade-related working capital solutions, and in a second phase, will look to develop its offering to include longer-term structures and investment insurance.

The acquisition and new state-backed structure will more closely align the ECA with “international best practice”, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.

“The full underwriting of the ECA’s obligations by the government is a key change… This is the global standard and all the more important in a challenging credit environment,” they tell GTR.

Efforts to reform Egypt’s export credit system have been underway for at least the past four years, with the central bank announcing plans for a new export credit risk company in 2019.

At the time, the central bank said the agency would have a focus on driving up Egypt’s historically low trade volumes with Africa.

“When you look at the percentage of trade between Egypt and other African countries, we found it to be around 2% of the total exports,” said Ramy El-Shaarawy, then a general manager at Egypt’s central bank.

GTR understands that boosting Egypt’s limited trade with Sub-Saharan Africa is still a key focus, yet the EEIGA will seek to create a diverse portfolio of risks spread across markets globally.

This is “in line” with the mandates of other emerging market ECAs, such as those in Asia or elsewhere in Africa, the source says.

The announcement comes at a time of significant economic turmoil in Egypt, Africa’s second largest economy.

Last week, Fitch Ratings downgraded Egypt’s credit rating to B-, citing heightened financial risks as well as growing national debt, which was reported to stand at 97% of GDP in July, up more than 15% from a year prior.

A devaluation of the local currency by nearly 50% against the US dollar since March 2022 has acutely affected Egyptian businesses, while in September annual urban inflation soared to a historic high of 38%.

Foreign currency issues, high US interest rates as well as rampant inflation are making it difficult for Egyptian buyers to meet their financial obligations, says a September memo from the US Department of Commerce.

Local importers are struggling to secure hard currency from their banks to procure raw materials and machinery from abroad, it adds.

“Most of these companies have worked closely with their US company partners for many years with minimal problems. However, in 2023, the number of US companies that contacted the US Foreign Commercial Service in Cairo for assistance with non-payment issues more than quadrupled,” the memo says.

Despite the gloomy near-term outlook, Cairo is working to implement economic changes as part of a US$3bn International Monetary Fund package signed in December.

In May, the World Bank forecast that Egypt’s overall macroeconomic environment would improve in the medium term as the African country continues to push ahead with stabilisation and structural reforms.

Such efforts could help “unleash the private sector’s potential in higher value-added and export-oriented activities necessary for job-creation and better living standards,” the World Bank report said.

The post Egypt readies launch of new ECA appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

The fund aims to provide opportunities for investors to back a range of credit and equity products across the country. Credit products include structured trade finance and convertible debt, while equity products cover common and preferred equity as well as other derivatives and hybrids. 

Gemcorp says it is committing seed funding, while the Ministry of Investment will help establish the fund and facilitate access to investment opportunities. Priority sectors include energy, infrastructure, and minerals and mining. 

“Saudi Arabia is a key focus market, offering a favourable investment environment and unique opportunities to develop innovative financial solutions for public and private stakeholders in [those] three priority sectors,” says Gemcorp founder and chief executive Atanas Bostandjiev. 

“Our aspiration is to make this fund the first of a series of follow-on funds in the kingdom.” 

Saudi Arabia’s deputy investment minister, Salah Ali Khabti, adds that foreign direct investment has been a “transformative force” to the country’s local economy, and expects similar initiatives to emerge in the future. 

“Gemcorp’s US$1bn fund will be a pivotal catalyst for our economic growth, poised to invigorate our key priority sectors,” he says. “We believe this landmark fund launch will set the stage for others to follow, ushering in a new era of prosperity and innovation for our region.” 

Gemcorp says investments will align with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 strategy, as well as its broader economic development initiatives. 

It adds that increasing financing for renewable energy, further developing production of aluminium, copper, gold and phosphate, and improving infrastructure development, are currently key investment trends in the country. 

The post Gemcorp partners with Saudi investment ministry on US$1bn fund appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

The Commonwealth Trade Bank (CTB) was seeking payment from Dubai Insurance Co for policies covering US$4.2mn owed to the lender by Phoenix Commodities, a trader which collapsed in early 2020.

A five-day trial set to begin in Dubai on October 16 was averted after the two sides reached a confidential settlement over the weekend, according to a court document and staff.

CTB was part of the GFG Alliance, a group of companies under Gupta’s control, before it ceased operations in 2020. A spokesperson for the group declined to comment on the settlement.

Before the settlement, Dubai Insurance had defended its refusal to pay by alleging that the Phoenix transactions financed by CTB were not genuine. Instead, the insurer claimed, Phoenix used recycled bills of lading from previous deals to raise financing.

Dubai Insurance, which could not be reached for comment, is still facing two similar claims in the Dubai courts filed by Westford Trade Services and Malta’s Fimbank.

Westford is demanding Dubai Insurance honour trade credit policies covering a US$3.6mn transaction with Phoenix, but the insurer is arguing that the companies never had title to the goods.

The insurance provider has also alleged that Phoenix had a sub-ledger of deals which were used to raise financing but recorded “in a way that strongly suggests that the transactions being recorded do not relate to a real trade”.

In the Fimbank case, the lender is suing to force Dubai Insurance to pay out US$5.43mn on a trade credit insurance policy invoked after oil trader Gulf Petrochem failed to repay a trade finance facility.

In that dispute, Dubai Insurance has again hinged its refusal to honour the claim partly on an alleged lack of evidence that the financed trades actually took place.

The disputes in Dubai are among a spate of cases in Singapore, Malaysia and Australia stemming from policies covering small and medium-sized traders that foundered during the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.

Most are still before the courts, although a judge in Sydney last year ordered an insurer, the Bond and Credit Company, to honour a policy it had granted to an Australian financier for trades with Phoenix Commodities. The court found, in part, that any fraud perpetrated by Phoenix did not void the policy, a decision later upheld on appeal.

The post Gupta bank and Dubai insurer settle row over disputed trades appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

The three-year agreement will facilitate the purchase of commodities produced in Saudi Arabia, including metals such as gold and copper as well as downstream oil and gas products, connecting the Middle Eastern state’s exporters with over 156 markets worldwide.

“Such credit facilities come as part of our ongoing efforts to expand the global reach of Saudi exports,” says Naif Al-Shammari, Saudi Exim’s deputy CEO.

Launched in 2020 to support Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 – a mammoth economic diversification plan – Saudi Exim’s remit centres around growing non-oil exports, which currently account for less than 20% of the total, according to figures from the General Authority for Statistics.

“Our collaboration with Trafigura aligns with Vision 2030 goals and will play a pivotal role in unlocking promising investment and trade opportunities between the Kingdom and countries worldwide,” adds Al-Shammari. “This strategic endeavour will pave the way for driving global economic growth and advancing international trade.”

Trafigura’s latest financing follows a similar deal signed with the Abu Dhabi Exports Office (Adex) in March, which was characterised at the time by Mohamed Saif Al Suwaidi, director general of Abu Dhabi Fund for Development and chairman of Adex’s Exports Executive Committee, as contributing “to the UAE’s economic diversification efforts, increasing trade with the rest of the world, and enhancing the presence of Emirati goods in the international market”.

In the past 12 months, traders such as Trafigura have tapped billions of dollars in ECA-backed financing from countries keen to secure energy imports and metals supplies, including Italy and Germany.

Meanwhile, in June, Trafigura was the beneficiary of two US Exim-backed facilities enabling US exporters to sell liquefied natural gas to European buyers seeking to replace Russian imports following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.

The post Trafigura taps Saudi Exim for US$500mn facility appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

Fimbank is seeking US$5.43mn from the insurer, which the Maltese lender says it is owed under a policy which covered non-payment by Gulf Petrochem, a trader which used the facility to finance eight deals in early 2020 but collapsed shortly afterwards.

The case is the third publicly known lawsuit facing Dubai Insurance stemming from the insurer’s refusal to pay out under a trade credit policy, following legal action by Westford Trade Services and the Commonwealth Trade Bank in disputes over disgraced trader Phoenix Commodities.

In the latest case, Dubai Insurance says it should not have to honour the claim, which is for the 50% insured portion of the facility.

The row is among many that have erupted between trade finance lenders and insurers after small and medium-sized traders foundered during the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, facing liquidity crunches as banks tightened lending. Some have been alleged or found to have engaged in lengthy frauds which were exposed after they failed to clinch fresh financing.

Gulf Petrochem, which specialised in oil and petroleum products, has been in restructuring since mid-2020, triggering a wave of litigation stemming from its unpaid debts.

Fimbank first granted an uncommitted revolving credit facility of up to US$15mn to Gulf Petrochem in 2016, to finance invoices from pre-approved suppliers, court filings show. The trader was required to pay interest and repay the principal within 90 days.

Gulf Petrochem drew down on the facility to finance eight invoices issued by Vitol, Uniper Energy DMCC and Sahara Petrochem FZE in February and March 2020, according to Fimbank’s claim.

The trader defaulted on all its payments and post-dated cheques provided to Fimbank as security bounced, the lender says.

Fimbank filed its claim with Dubai Insurance in September 2021, the court filings show. Since then, the insurer has asked for further documents but has not made a decision on the claim.

Proof of ‘genuine transactions’ demanded

Dubai Insurance has deployed several arguments to rebuff Fimbank’s claim, including by demanding evidence from Fimbank that the trades financed with the facility were real.

In a filing, the insurer says that an internal audit of Gulf Petrochem, carried out by its restructuring advisors FTI Consulting, found that a group of three traders “had perpetrated fraud on GP”.

Citing a 2020 email from Gulf Petrochem to Fimbank, it says the alleged fraud consisted of “discrepancies in [its] sales invoicing system whereby a number of invoices were financed which the relevant counterparty rejected”.

Gulf Petrochem also publicly disclosed the alleged misconduct at the time and said it had reported it to police. UniCredit, one of the trader’s banks, has alleged that Gulf Petrochem itself has “been guilty of widespread fraud in relation to many cargoes”, a claim echoed by shipping firm Torm in separate legal proceedings.

“In the circumstances, the claimants are put to proof that the transactions the first claimant financed were genuine transactions, provided in the ordinary course of business,” Dubai Insurance’s defence says.

This line of defence echoes that put forward by insurer Bond and Credit Company in a dispute in Australia with Arab Bank Switzerland, in which the carrier alleges that insured trades undertaken by Gulf Petrochem were “fictitious transactions”. Sahara Petrochem was also one of the suppliers in that case.

Dubai Insurance’s defence adds that Gulf Petrochem’s statement of account with Fimbank shows that on “multiple occasions”, loans were repaid by third parties, which the insurer says “is indicative of a company in financial distress”.

The insurer says Fimbank should provide proof that it investigated the payments, given it was required by the policy not to incur any further exposure to a borrower “following the occurrence of material events or circumstances that may reasonably be expected to result in a loss”.

The insurer also argues that Fimbank has not provided sufficient proof it actually suffered an insurable loss from Gulf Petrochem’s non-payment, pointing out that the outstanding balance of the facility stood at only US$36,454 in the month before the insurance claim was filed.

Fimbank did not respond to a request for comment. Dubai Insurance and a lawyer representing it in the case did not respond when contacted.

The post Dubai insurer hit with fresh bank lawsuit over trade credit policies appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

Under the agreement, Egypt’s General Authority for Supply Commodities will receive US$100mn in financing over a five-year period from Adex, Abu Dhabi’s export credit agency, with the deal subject to an annual renewal plan.  

The funding will back the import of wheat into the African country by Al Dahra, a global agribusiness company headquartered in Abu Dhabi and with operations in the Middle East, Europe, North America, Asia and Africa.  

Ali Al-Moselhy, Egypt’s minister for supply and internal trade, says the deal will ensure the country procures “high quality wheat at the lowest cost financing available, with comfortable payment terms”.  

“This agreement solidifies our commitment [to] establishing long term supply deals with key producers across the world, so that the people of Egypt have access to essential food supplies and strengthening our food grain supply chain buffer to withstand any unexpected shocks in the global markets.” 

Egypt has for decades maintained a sizeable subsidy scheme which has kept the price of bread for over 60 million Egyptians at 0.05 Egyptian pounds (US$0.0032) per loaf.  

Historically, the country been the world’s largest importer of wheat and bought much of its grain from Russia and Ukraine. Between 2016 and 2020 the country sourced about 18% of its wheat from Ukraine and 58% from Russia, the UN says.  

But Moscow’s invasion and retaliatory western sanctions – which have affected financing and insurance of commodities – have forced Egypt to diversify sources. Since last February, Cairo approved several new countries as eligible sourcing countries, including India, Portugal and Serbia.  

Adex did not confirm which countries the grain will be sourced from when asked by GTR, but a spokesperson says the agency plays a vital role in helping Emirati companies expand their business reach.  

Globally, Al Dahra’s production of grains and oilseeds is approximately 600,000 metric tonnes and according to the company’s website, the firm has grain farming capabilities in the Black Sea region. Meanwhile, the company also has a grains and distribution hub in Fujairah, UAE, and sourcing agreements with farmers and suppliers in Europe, Australia and the Americas.  

The post Egypt and Abu Dhabi’s Adex sign US$500mn wheat deal appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

Westford entities in the UK and Dubai are suing Dubai Insurance over unpaid claims arising from Phoenix Commodities’ insolvency in April 2020. The insurer is refusing to pay out on the grounds that it does not believe Phoenix’s purchases of goods from Westford were legitimate. 

In an amended defence filed in April and released by a Dubai court last week, the insurer also cast doubt on a US$3.49mn purchase of rice by Westford in December 2019. 

Court filings show that under an arrangement between Phoenix and Westford, Phoenix would arrange the purchase of goods from a supplier, before asking Westford to step in. Westford would then purchase those goods itself, before immediately selling them onto Phoenix on deferred payment terms. 

For one transaction, Dubai Insurance says a due diligence report requested by Westford on the supplier – UAE-based Uno Trading – found no business registration or website matching that name, and could not verify the address or phone numbers provided. 

The due diligence report adds that “no other sources were available to provide any further information about the subject matter”, the court filing shows. 

The insurer also alleges that Westford obtained a US$3.6mn loan from White Oak to finance that purchase, but rather than transfer the funds to Uno Trading, it reassigned to Uno Trading an existing receivable due to its Hong Kong parent company. 

That receivable derived from a sale by Westford Limited to Darintech Singapore, but Dubai Insurance says Darintech appears to have ceased trading in August 2017. 

The insurer says Darintech “could not therefore in December 2019 have generated a receivable that was capable of being assigned by Westford Limited to Uno Trading, or a receivable of any value”. 

It argues this “alleged convoluted payment arrangement” was not set out in the purchase contract with Uno Trading, nor seemingly communicated to White Oak. 

Dubai Insurance says Westford is “put to proof as to how it deployed the loan monies from White Oak in circumstances where it did not use those loan monies to pay Uno Trading”. 

It adds Westford should provide evidence there was a legitimate sale from Westford Limited to Darintech, and that the reassignment of that receivable to Uno Trading was properly accounted for within Westford’s intra-company accounts. 

The defence document also reiterates claims based on information from Phoenix’s liquidators that the same goods being bought and sold by Westford had already been bought and sold by Phoenix, and so could not have been the subject of a legitimate trade transaction. 

Those claims follow findings by Phoenix’s liquidators that the company constructed a sub-ledger of transactions that do not appear to correspond to real trades, but were used to raise financing from lenders. 

Dubai Insurance argues Westford knew, or ought to have known, “that the transactions were not genuine”. 

Westford did not comment when contacted by GTR. The company has previously argued that it was unaware Phoenix may have undertaken multiple transactions involving the same goods, and had no knowledge of its internal record keeping. 

Westford has also argued in its own submissions that it obtained original bills of lading from sellers and delivered them to Phoenix, and so legitimately acquired and sold title to the goods. 

Dubai Insurance and White Oak did not comment when contacted. 

The post Dubai Insurance alleges Westford commodity trades “not genuine” appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

Liquidators of Dubai-headquartered Phoenix found that its trading system contained two separate ledgers, with some companies appearing across both but with different counterparty codes, according to documents cited in an ongoing Dubai court case. 

One of those ledgers seemingly consisted of invoices that did not correspond to any underlying stock movements, and that could not be identified in accounting records as sales, purchases or stock. 

Liquidators found examples of companies “where distinct counterparty codes have been created for each entity, and which are used in Phoenix’s accounting system in a way that strongly suggests that the transactions being recorded do not relate to a real trade”, documents show. 

Phoenix – which spanned entities in the UAE, Singapore and British Virgin Islands – appointed liquidators in April 2020, after collapsing under the weight of around US$400mn in currency hedging losses, according to reports at the time.  

The allegations are cited by Dubai Insurance Co, which is being sued by Westford Trade Services, a trader and non-bank financier, over losses following Phoenix’s collapse. 

Two Westford entities in the UK and Dubai were left out of pocket after Phoenix defaulted on several payments in April 2020, and sought to reclaim the funds from Dubai Insurance. 

However, Dubai Insurance refused to pay out, arguing there is no evidence the parties involved ever had title to the goods, prompting Westford to turn to the courts to force the insurer to honour the claim. 

A defence document filed by Dubai Insurance cites Phoenix’s liquidators’ reports, which are not publicly available, to argue that Phoenix’s purchase of goods from Westford were not legitimate transactions. 

It says Westford – as well as Genuine and Blue Shield, two traders also involved in the transactions – had each been allocated two different counterparty codes by Phoenix, one of which relates to the sub-ledger of transactions that liquidators could not verify. 

The insurer argues “there is insufficient evidence that trades between [Westford], Genuine and Blue Shield were actual trades in the sense of being actual transfers of title to goods in exchange for consideration”. 

It adds that Phoenix accounting records suggest the goods had already been purchased from, and sold to, other companies before the relevant sales contracts were agreed. 

Westford has previously argued that it was unaware Phoenix may have undertaken multiple transactions involving the same goods, and had no knowledge of its internal record keeping. 

The company has also said it obtained original bills of lading from sellers and delivered them to Phoenix, and so legitimately acquired and sold title to the goods. 

Phoenix’s liquidator and Dubai Insurance did not respond when contacted by GTR. Westford, which is not accused of any wrongdoing, did not immediately comment. 

Further allegations 

In another legal battle in Dubai involving losses to Phoenix, Dubai Insurance has aired similar experiences where the trader’s liquidators could not find records of trades that had been used to raise funds. 

In that case, the insurer is being sued for refusing to pay claims filed by the Commonwealth Trade Bank (CTB), a since-closed financing entity of steel tycoon Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance. 

In an updated defence filed last week, Dubai Insurance suggests Phoenix raised financing from CTB by purporting to buy goods from trader Aarna International DMCC, when in fact it had already bought and sold the goods in deals with other entities.  

The insurance company, again citing documents from Phoenix’s liquidators, says the trader purchased a cargo of Russian milling wheat from a supplier in September 2019, which was then sold to two buyers in Africa.  

But Phoenix also entered into a contract to buy the exact same goods from Aarna afterwards, citing the same bills of lading and using financing from CTB, according to the insurer’s defence.  

For the latter deal, “the liquidator has been unable to identify in Phoenix’s records any shipping or sale documents…, correspondence or the documents included with the request in relation to this alleged transaction”.  

Similarly, CTB’s claim refers to a September 2019 deal in which Phoenix purchased a US$1.2mn cargo of Thai rice from Aarna, which CTB financed by purchasing the invoice.  

But the insurer says that the same cargo had already been bought and sold by Phoenix in a completely separate transaction referencing the same bills of lading, which the liquidator could not locate any record of in Phoenix’s accounts. 

A similar arrangement is alleged in the US$2mn purchase of Brazilian rice in November 2019.  

“The transactions between Aarna…and Phoenix were not genuine transactions giving effect to the actual procurement and transfer of goods (underlying stock movements) or title between the parties but were instead ‘paper transactions’ with no such transfer between the parties,” the insurer claims.  

A spokesperson for GFG Alliance declined to comment. 

Suspicions around Phoenix’s trade activity have also featured in a court case in Australia.  

In March last year, the former managing director of a UAE trader told the court that documents purporting to evidence transactions with Phoenix appeared to have been fabricated, while the liquidator of another firm said no records could be found for some transactions Phoenix raised financing from. 

Malta’s Fimbank was also a trade finance creditor of Phoenix, reportedly alongside lenders including Emirates NBD, Wyelands Bank and Standard Chartered.  

Additional reporting by Jacob Atkins. 

The post Phoenix created ‘sub-ledger’ of unverified trades to raise financing, liquidators say appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

Jeddah-based Alawwal Capital invested just over US$10mn in the Rasmala Trade Finance Fund in 2019. Rasmala Investment Bank, the fund manager, suspended it in March 2020, citing market ructions caused by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Alawwal alleges that Rasmala breached its statutory duties by failing to disclose three cases of non-payment or delayed payment by counterparties, including two court cases, before Alawwal invested in the fund.

Rasmala did not respond to written questions from GTR, but a court filing acknowledging the suit says it intends to fully defend the claim. Its trade finance fund remains suspended, Alawwal says, although some redemptions have been allowed.

In a complaint filed last month in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts, Alawwal says it was approached in late 2018 by Rasmala representatives who said the trade finance fund would be a good match for Alawwal’s strategy of low-risk, sharia-compliant investments.

In meetings in late 2018 and early 2019, Rasmala said there was a “0% chance of making a loss” when investing in the fund because of its strict, low-risk lending policies and risk mitigation measures, according to the complaint.

The measures included lending only to reputable counterparties, conducting inspections of goods, over-collateralisation and use of credit insurance.

Alawwal also says that its representatives asked in the meetings whether there were any defaults or live litigation that could affect the fund’s performance and asked Rasmala to share information on deals that had “gone bad” and lessons learned from them.

The complaint says Rasmala responded that “there were only a few scattered cases of default involving small counterparties” and that “these cases were all settled satisfactorily due to the robust multi-layered security mechanisms put in place by the fund”.

All deals were 100% covered by guarantees and in the case of a default, provision would be made until the guarantees were realised, Alawwal’s complaint cites Rasmala’s representatives as saying.

However, Alawwal later learned, through a London lawsuit Rasmala launched against Trafigura in 2021 over allegedly fictitious coal trades, that a UAE company it had advanced US$22.6mn to had defaulted on the majority of the repayment amount, due in the first quarter of 2018.

Alawwal says the issues with the UAE firm, Farlin Energy & Commodities, were disclosed in Rasmala’s 2017 accounts, which were provided to Alawwal, but the accounts suggested that the fund’s potential losses were only US$4.2mn.

In a document given to Alawwal in late 2018, Rasmala allegedly wrote that “the company has not taken any legal action against other entities or individuals during the last two years”.

But Alawwal says it has since discovered that in 2018 the fund sued UAE firm Met Trade, and its owner Raman Gupta, for US$14.2mn over a failure to make repayments on a murabaha facility.

The case was also disclosed in the fund’s 2017 accounts, which said that the exposure was limited to an uninsured US$4.1mn portion of the loan and that “the guarantor [Gupta] has sufficient financial resources to meet his obligation to the fund”.

In its complaint, Alawwal says that on a “strict interpretation”, Rasmala’s statement that there was no recent litigation related to the Rasmala Investment Bank, which manages the fund, rather than the fund itself.

However, the company argues “the statement gave the impression that there had been no legal action in relation to defaults suffered by the fund”.

Both Rasmala’s suits against Trafigura and Raman Gupta remain active, court records show. A May 2023 order from the Delhi High Court says that insolvency proceedings relating to Gupta are “still pending”.

Alawwal alleges in the complaint that the cases show that Rasmala’s claims about its risk mitigation strategy “were untrue”, otherwise “the fund would not have incurred the losses” from Met Trade and Farlin.

It also claims that Rasmala’s statements about its investment strategy and methods were untrue because “if the fund had only contracted with reputable clients with long track records, it would not have contracted with a fraudster, which forges documents” and that the fraud should have been detected through inspections.

The complaint alleges Rasmala’s statements violated DIFC collective investment laws which require fund managers to provide prospectuses that contain “clear, fair and not misleading” information, prohibit “misleading or deceptive” statements and require them to disclose all information that would reasonably be required by an investor.

Alawwal is seeking US$7.6mn in compensation under the law. The figure comprises US$5.17mn of the firm’s US$10mn investment which remains in the suspended fund after redemptions, and US$2.37mn which it says is the “opportunity cost” of investing in Rasmala’s fund instead of a similar trade finance fund.

The complaint shows that Alawwal has continued to make redemptions from the Rasmala fund, as recently as this year.

Rasmala said in November 2019 that the fund, launched in 2014, had surpassed US$100mn and generated a cumulative return of 14.1%.

Rasmala manages several funds including in real estate and fixed income, primarily aimed at investors in the Gulf. Jeddah-based Alawwal says on its website that it specialises “in wealth and asset management, investment services, financing arrangements, financial advisory and business development services”.

Alawwal and a lawyer representing it in the case did not respond to a request for comment.

The post Rasmala trade finance fund hit with investor lawsuit appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).

Under the programme, Alfanar’s suppliers will be able to monetise their receivables using FABeSCF, the bank’s automated digital platform. First launched in Egypt in 2021 and now also live in the UAE, the system integrates directly with clients’ ERP systems, reducing the need for manual intervention and allowing corporates to receive funds in their bank account with just a few clicks.

“We are delighted to partner with FAB and launch this working capital solution that is aimed at improving cash flows across the entire supply chain,” says Mohammad Khattab, corporate treasury manager at Alfanar. “Using the automated online FABeSCF platform will make the internal process much more efficient and seamless for Alfanar.”

Anirudha Panse, FAB’s head of global transaction banking trade finance product innovation, tells GTR that this is FAB’s first SCF programme using the platform, adding that he expects more to follow. “The pipeline is very strong, and there is significant demand from all our customers. The main sectors experiencing high demand include power and energy, oil and gas, and food distribution,” he says.

The development comes amid efforts by FAB, the UAE’s largest bank by assets, to expand its reach and footprint in the Middle East and North Africa.

“At FAB, our mission is to continually expand our regional presence and offer cutting-edge solutions that drive growth for our clients,” says Fahad Al Juwaidi, the bank’s Saudi Arabia country CEO. “The launch of our supply chain finance programme in Saudi Arabi is a significant step forward in our regional expansion strategy.”

The post FAB launches its first supply chain finance programme in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Global Trade Review (GTR).