Arabian enterprise - Saudi Arabia's more welcoming approach to foreign investment
Saudi Arabia's mismatched approach to foreign investment has proved problematic for many investors, but the country may be about to embrace a more accessible system, say Hogan Lovells' Imran Mufti and Irfan Butt
September 06, 2012 at 07:07 PM
8 minute read
Saudi Arabia's mismatched approach to foreign investment has proved problematic for many investors, but the country may be about to embrace a more accessible system, say Hogan Lovells' Imran Mufti and Irfan Butt
Since 2001, the Saudi Arabian Foreign Investment Act has allowed foreign direct investment into the Kingdom. For any non-Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) shareholder, individual or corporate, the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA) is the regulator that issues an investment licence to either incorporate a company or register an establishment to do business in Saudi Arabia.
This May, Abdullatif A Al-Othman, a former high-ranking official at energy company Saudi Aramco, was named as the new governor of SAGIA. His appointment brought a sense of optimism that the efficient working practices and processes at Saudi Aramco would, over time, work their way into SAGIA, making it a more streamlined and accessible operation for existing and new foreign investors.
Surprisingly, one of the first decisions made by SAGIA following the appointment of the new governor was the suspension of all service sector licence applications and the increase, albeit unofficially, of the minimum capitalisation requirement for a manufacturing licence to SAR50m (£8.4m).
Both those decisions were reversed within a month of being introduced, with service sector licence applications reopening and the capitalisation requirement for a manufacturing licence reverting down to the previous minimum of SAR1m (£168,000).
The historical development of the policies of SAGIA and how it has taken shape over the past decade may go some way in explaining its reasons for introducing, and then reversing, these new policies.
Non-GCC entities and individuals were initially allowed to apply for an investment licence to SAGIA in the service and manufacturing sectors, and since 2008 entities have been permitted to apply for consultancy and 'trading' (any form of retail or wholesale buying and selling of goods).
A negative list of activities (ie not open to foreign investment) includes, among others, land transportation and investment in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
The negative list is subject to periodic review and has been considerably reduced since 2001 with the last major change taking place in 2008, when consultancy services (albeit with stringent requirements) and trading were permitted for the first time.
Application hurdles
An application to SAGIA is made on a designated application form and is submitted with a long list of documents that vary according to the type of application being made.
For example, for a non-specialist service licence, a bank certificate for the full value of the proposed capital of each shareholder is required – there is no such requirement for specialist service licence applications.
Common elements of all applications include the constitutional documents of the proposed shareholders, a power of attorney authorising a representative – normally a lawyer – to make the application, and a shareholder's resolution authorising the application on behalf of the applicant.
One notable difference in policy since 2001 has been the reluctance of SAGIA to accept applications for individuals looking to set up establishments. These have generally been phased out in recent years and in practice, most licences issued are now for joint ventures between companies, either wholly foreign owned or 'mixed liability' companies where one of the joint venture partners is Saudi.
Applications in certain sectors require mandatory capital investment of a Saudi partner. For trading activities, such as retail or wholesale trade, SAGIA will only license a mixed limited liability company with a minimum capital investment of SAR26.7m (£4.5m), with 25% of the capital invested by a Saudi investor.
Similarly, for project management licences, where the activity is mainly related to the management of the construction of buildings, 25% of the capital must be invested by a Saudi individual or company that must also now hold a professional licence from the Saudi Council of Engineers.
Practically, the most important part of the application to SAGIA is, first, to convince SAGIA that the applicant has good enough credentials and, second, that the wording of the proposed activity being applied for is not prohibited either because of a policy decision, or because it is too close to an activity on the negative list.
In 2001, the focus of SAGIA was on making sure that the activity applied for was not on the negative list and that the applicant had successfully deposited the full capital amount into a local bank account. The result was a huge influx of foreign direct investment (FDI), making the Saudi economy one of the largest recipients of FDI in the Arab world.
With SAGIA on a steep learning curve on the type of applicants it was licensing, and investors expecting the liberty to do business, the result was often a mismatch of expectations which ultimately led to SAGIA adopting a hit-and-miss approach.
The activity that is licensed by SAGIA is also now subject to intense scrutiny.
Typically, an applicant must demonstrate that either the same activity exists in the objects clause of the constitutional documents of the shareholding applicant, or that it has a proven track record in the industry – and preferably both.
The activity that is approved or licensed by SAGIA will be the only activity that will be permitted by the newly established Saudi entity. This limits the scope of business that the foreign investor is able to carry out, and means that any subsequent business opportunity outside the scope of the licence may be missed unless an additional application to SAGIA, post-incorporation, is made to either amend the existing licence or issue an additional one.
Such heavy regulation and the limiting nature of SAGIA invariably inhibits investors, many of whom are used to a more laissez-faire approach to doing business.
The activity granted by SAGIA is the key to a successful application. The restricting nature of the licence means there is a very limited concept of setting up a dormant SAGIA-licensed entity with a view to doing business at a later date.
Opening multiple entities with different joint venture partners at the same time is also not common, with SAGIA preferring a foreign investor to demonstrate performance in the form of accounts and tax certificates for at least a year before it considers granting additional licences with different activities with new or the same partners.
Accordingly, foreign investors should appreciate the regulatory nature of SAGIA even after an applicant has successfully incorporated in Saudi Arabia.
Quality over quantity
SAGIA today has developed its policy, from the early years of a very liberal policy on licensing to a more measured procedure based on the quality of applicant and not just the size of capital being invested.
The main considerations for SAGIA now are the value-add in terms of expertise or the know-how that a foreign investor will bring to the Saudi economy. An applicant who offers a programme of training of specialist skills will almost always be looked upon favourably by SAGIA.
SAGIA has matured in its approach to what it wants from a foreign investor. Unfortunately, this has not always translated into making the investment rules, or more importantly the policy decisions involved to implement them, easy to understand for foreign investors.
SAGIA is currently reviewing the entire investment application procedure and it is likely there will be further changes at some point. The suspensions in May were never formally announced or communicated, which is common in Saudi Arabia, so it may mean that any rule or policy changes made in the review are communicated to applicants in the next few months.
In the future, it is hoped that the whole SAGIA process will continue with its professional development programme with an increased focus on consistency, transparency and efficiency.
Consistent with the Saudi government's objectives of developing an economy based on knowledge-based capital, a key objective of SAGIA is to secure qualitative foreign investment which brings with it expertise in a given field as well as a competitive edge commercially.
This is not a problem for the right investor. The size and opportunity of the Saudi economy is a major attraction for foreign investors.
SAGIA has a great opportunity to finish the detailed review currently being carried out and introduce long-lasting changes that will make it easier for foreigners to invest. Hopefully, this will yield the financial results and achieve the policy objectives that the Kingdom seeks while balancing the commercial imperatives of the foreign investor.
Imran Mufti is a partner and Irfan Butt is an associate at Hogan Lovells. Both are on secondment at Al-Yaqoub Attorneys & Legal Advisers in association with Hogan Lovells International in Saudi Arabia.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat About the Old Partners Who Have No Interest in AI?
Freshfields' Rebrand: Firm Still Committed to Germany, Senior Partner Says
4 minute readWhich Law Firms Have the Most Followers on Social Media?
Trending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250