Succession power struggles as Mall of the Emirates owners ordered to restructure
A special judicial committee in Dubai has reportedly ordered the parent company of one of the region's retail giants to restructure its board, trying to end years of turmoil after the death of its billionaire founder and secure the future of the owner of the Mall of the Emirates.
The changes at Majid Al Futtaim come as Dubai tries to guide the family-run businesses that powered the city-state's growth in the United Arab Emirates through generational change.
Authorities also likely want to avoid any further infighting that could slow down the growth of a firm that has long made hiring Emiratis a key goal.
The Financial Times first reported on the changes to Majid Al Futtaim's board, saying it came at the orders of a government-established special judicial committee.
In 2022, Dubai's ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, established a special judicial committee to look after the estate of Majid Al Futtaim's founder — also named Majid Al Futtaim — following his death in 2021.
Responding to questions Monday from The Associated Press, the company appeared to acknowledge the changes at Majid Al Futtaim Capital, which oversees its group of companies.
The changes 'reflect a shareholder-led effort to evolve governance in line with the long-term interests of the Group,' the company said in a statement.
'These changes do not affect the operations or governance of Majid Al Futtaim Holding. Majid Al Futtaim continues to operate under an independent board and strong oversight.'
Dubai's government did not respond to a request for comment.
The Financial Times described Majid Al Futtaim's parent company as now being overseen by five government and four family representatives.
Succession battles aren't unusual in the United Arab Emirates, where family-run businesses dominate private enterprise.
Rulers have given merchant families broad control over different sectors in exchange for the promise of big investments and fast-paced development.
But over the years, that economic strategy has caused headaches for authorities, who have intervened when patriarchs die and tensions between disgruntled relatives boil over.
Majid Al Futtaim is a mainstay of the local consumer economy. It's also a giant in the broader Gulf Arab region, owning and operating prominent hotels, entertainment venues and shopping malls. Its portfolio includes the Mall of the Emirates, a major tourist draw in Dubai that houses the Middle East 's first-ever indoor ski slope. It also runs regional franchises for global brands, including Lego.
Majid Al Futtaim's revenues last year topped $9 billion.
As crown prince in the 1990s, Sheikh Mohammed mediated a succession dispute between Al Futtaim, the founder, and a cousin. Al Futtaim used the funds from that settlement to start his namesake company.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Tangled history and trouble today - what is the UK's plan on Iran?
"If this is true, all our troubles are over." A British businessman fast running out of cash, William Knox D'Arcy, is said to have uttered those words when he received a telegram from Persia, 113 years had been discovered, after years of failed explorations under Knox D'Arcy, who had been granted the rights to hunt for the black stuff at the turn of the him, striking oil was to provide a second fortune after he'd made millions from Australian gold. For the UK, Persia - later to become Iran - and for the rest of the world, it was the moment the Middle East's financial and political fortunes became linked to the West like never D'Arcy's cash problem might have been solved. But the troubles in the region were far from weekend, although ministers want to concentrate on their plans to make it easier to do business at home ahead of their industrial strategy being published next week, two big questions hang heavy. What happens next in the hottest of conflicts in a vital region? And does the UK play a role?Whether you like it or not, "it should matter, and it does matter" to the UK, according to one Whitehall is the fraught tangle of history. Not just the fortune from the first discovery of oil going into British coffers at the start of the last also the UK's involvement in overturning the government in 1922, invading with the Russians during World War Two, backing another coup in 1953, then along with America, propping up the Shah until his exit in 1979, after months of turbulence and increasing protest against his regime. You can watch amazing archive of his departure here. "We were all over them" for decades, one former senior minister forward to modern times and successive governments have been deeply concerned about Iran's ambitions to build a nuclear bomb. There were efforts, particularly by the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to do deals that put weapons beyond reach. But there is acute worry now about Iranian activities in the UK itself. Yesterday, seven men were arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm after two people were assaulted outside the Iranian embassy. The Met Police have said they believe the altercation happened between protesters supporting and opposing the Iranian month three alleged Iranian spies were charged for planning to commit serious violence against UK based journalists. And the director general of MI5 said the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots since the start of 2022, presenting potentially lethal threats here at home.A source involved with an Iranian opposition group warned the regime, "has a massive network in the UK promoting terrorism and extremism – we'd never let the Russians get away with this… It's happening on our streets". What is the UK role? Ministers' public focus is on diplomacy for now. As ever, it was a suggestion from US President Donald Trump that sent Whitehall into a spin. This time, the notion that America might help Israel take out Iran's nuclear Foreign Secretary David Lammy jumped on to a plane to Washington. The government emergency committee, Cobra, convened. Everything went into overdrive before another update from team Trump. Actually, he'd take a fortnight to think about left No 10 thinking, "everyone can take a breath – the two weeks and the volume of engagement means there is some tone of optimism – we're just focusing on trying to calm things", an insider Lammy spent more than an hour with Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, and Steve Witkoff, the president's envoy, leaving with the impression there was still a chance for diplomacy, although the threat of America joining the military action is worth remembering there is deep disagreement in Trump's party about whether to assist Israel or the foreign secretary was seeking information from his American hosts, the president had been having lunch with Steve Bannon, one of the foremost Make America Great Again (Maga) backers, who has been very loudly pressing Trump not to get involved. Diplomacy then moved to Geneva, where Lammy and several European colleagues met the Iranian foreign minister. They repeated concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions and it breaking the international talks finished with no fixed decisions on next moves or negotiations, but a willingness to try. Ultimately, the UK and European push is to keep talking, trying to stop the war spreading more widely. But some sources question whether this makes any difference."Europe is pretty irrelevant in all this," one senior figure told me - and the American president even said it out loud."Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one, " Trump said, dismissing the diplomatic sources describe diplomacy as a "sticking plaster", questioning how effective it can be when Israel is so clearly intent on breaking the status quo, and changing the shape of the region hoping for regime change in Iran and stopping them creating a nuclear former senior official told me, "Israel think this is a once in a lifetime, it's now or never… it doesn't represent a long term solution, but if you are in Tel Aviv the obvious riposte is, 'Yes, we'll still be alive'."Another security source suggested the UK would not be relevant by taking a "preachy European position, like a teacher in a playground", but could instead pursue "alignment with the Americans for our own hard interests".Aligning with America is so often a no-brainer for British prime ministers. But a Labour prime minister aligning with Trump to bomb a country in the Middle East? That's something else. There is the practicality, "people in Whitehall will be very sceptical if thinking bombing Iran will yield any better outcome", one former diplomat source suggests the UK simply hasn't done enough thinking in recent years about how to help Iran, a country of around 90 million people with serious political repression and economic hardship: "Britain doesn't have a strategy or a plan for Iran. It looks at Iran through the point of view of Israel or Gaza but doesn't look at it in its own right, so that's a problem."If America were to get involved with British support in one way or another, what happens next?The source said: "The Americans can go and attack Fordo (Iran's nuclear facility that's buried deeper than the Channel Tunnel), but if the Iranians lash out after, what then?"Then, there is the legality. You don't need me to remind you that the prime minister used to be an eminent the UK was asked to allow American jets to use the British base at Diego Garcia, or help with refuelling planes on their way to any Iranian target, the government would want to be confident there is a solid legal argument that justifies the is already a political row over publishing the advice with an understanding the attorney general has expressed the uninitiated, this is a very well-worn political track. Opposition parties say legal advice must be published in full. Governments say no. Lawyers and politicians, who are not giving the actual verdict, argue about it very publicly. In the end, international law is subject to all sorts of interpretation, what a former senior minister describes as "fungible" - in other words, it's far from is already what one source described as "loose blabber" about the legal advice this the politics of the moment normally comes first, and the prime minister of the day must political backdrop for No 10 is risky. Labour contends with the mythology around Tony Blair's decision to go into Iraq with George Bush, seen by many in the modern party as a decision too to be seen to support Israeli military action stirs a long-standing streak of anti-Israeli feeling on the that to profound concern about what is separately going on in Gaza right now, and it creates another candidates already swiped seats, and nearly took more from Labour in the general election. Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. Highlighting the plight of Gazans is clearly not the same as objecting to Israeli or American action against Iran. But issues can blur, and add to the volume of angry conversations inside the party about the Middle former senior minister, around during the Iraq conflict told me, "it would save us an awful lot of bother if you could get the Americans not to have our fingerprints on it".But, if the White House asks, "I'd swallow hard and say, 'OK'".Can you imagine Sir Keir Starmer saying no to Trump to help stop Iran creating a nuclear bomb? Can you imagine Sir Keir stepping into a Middle East conflict if it can be avoided?The answer to both can't be the same. The White House has pressed pause while Trump mulls his options, but America joining Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear programme remains an UK has huge interests in the security of Iran and the wider Middle East – whether oil, trade, intelligence, or military bases. Those questions for Sir Keir might be real before too long. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The ten ways to protect your money from a disaster: As the threat of nuclear war looms and cyberattacks soar, experts reveal the life-saving ways every family can keep their cash safe
In an increasingly fraught world, threats to the security of our finances are coming from all sides. The prospect of war between the US and Iran, paired with growing domestic concerns, means you'd be forgiven for worrying about how it might affect you.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Outcome of Israel's war with Iran is uncertain even if US joins conflict
Israel's assault on Iran, including its nuclear and ballistic weapons programme, is unlikely to secure its long-term strategic objectives, even if Benjamin Netanyahu manages to persuade the Trump administration into joining the conflict in the coming days and weeks, experts have said. According to diplomats, military specialists and security analysts, Israel – and its prime minister – is likely to face mounting headwinds in the campaign, amid warnings that it risks dangerously destabilising the region. There is mounting scepticism over whether even the US's use of massive ground-penetrating bombs would be able to knock out Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, which is buried deep beneath a mountain, and questions have emerged about Israel's ability to sustain a long-range offensive that has exposed its cities to counterattack by ballistic missiles. Experts make the distinction between Israel's operational success in targeting key Iranian sites and individuals, and its strategic objectives which appear to have expanded to regime change in Tehran, on top of destroying its nuclear programme. 'There is a dominant trend in Israel going back to the formation of the state that has suggested to politicians that violence will deliver a solution to what are political problems,' said Toby Dodge, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. 'My gut feeling is Iranian regime is more stable than has been suggested. And because Iran has a long history of commitment to technological modernisation and proliferation, well, that's something you can't simply remove with a bomb.' Analysts are also puzzled by an Israeli strategy that appears to have gambled on triggering a conflict in the hope of pushing a highly erratic US president in Donald Trump to join, supplying the firepower that Israel lacks in terms of massive bunker-busting bombs. Experts assess that the US would probably have to use several of these bombs, which would need to be dropped relatively close to the Fordow plant, protected by up to 90 metres of bedrock, in a complex and risky operation that is not guaranteed to succeed, and would probably draw retaliation from Iran against US bases, risking further escalation. 'Subcontracting the Fordow job would put the United States in Iran's sights,' Daniel C Kurtzer, a former US ambassador to Israel, and Steven N Simon, a veteran of the national security council, wrote in Foreign Affairs this week. 'Iran would almost certainly retaliate by killing American civilians. That, in turn, would compel the United States to reciprocate. 'Soon enough the only targets left for Washington to hit would be the Iranian regime's leaders, and the United States would again go into the regime-change business – a business in which exceedingly few Americans want to be involved any longer.' The prospect of regime change, perhaps by killing Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which has been raised by Israeli officials (and reportedly vetoed by Trump) is already causing profound alarm in the region. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the senior Iraqi cleric, made a rare intervention, warning of the profound dangers to the region. Another sceptic is Andreas Krieg, an associate professor in the Department of Defence Studies at King's College London, who has worked widely in the Middle East and is doubtful that air power can alone can make the kind of impact being sought by Israel, both in terms of destroying Iran's nuclear knowhow or removing the clerical regime. 'It's not the holy grail. We'd learned the lesson that air power alone doesn't work. And then we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that even massive numbers of boots on ground doesn't work,' he said. 'What we're seeing is not a strategic approach but one that is operational using air power, and the operational approach is starting the consume the strategic one which is about the political endgame. 'The best Israel can best can hope for is something like the campaign against Hezbollah, which has probably delivered a short-lived success, in that it was very successful in degrading Hezbollah's network. 'Iran is very similar in that its defence strategy is built around a decentralised mosaic. Decapitation doesn't work against that kind of network. You can take out key nodes, but the best [Israel] can hope for in killing Khamenei would be to trigger the succession crisis which in any case had been anticipated.' And if Netanyahu has miscalculated, it is in an area where he has long claimed expertise: in reading and playing US politics. With American support for US intervention polling dismally, and the issue threatening to split Trump's Maga movement, Israel may find itself on the wrong side of a toxic argument that has far more salience for Trump than helping Netanyahu. Failing a US intervention to support Israel's campaign, Israel is likely to face growing challenges amid indications it is running low on some missile interceptors. Crew fatigue for the long-range sorties, aircraft maintenance cycles and the exhaustion of prepared target lists are all likely to militate against Israel's ability to maintain a prolonged conflict at the current high level of intensity. Any drop-off will be used by Tehran to suggest to Iranians that it has weathered the worst of the storm. There is a third possibility. Writing in his book Waging Modern War, in the aftermath of the Nato air campaign in Kosovo in 1999 – seen as one of the more successful uses of air power – the organisation's former supreme allied commander Wesley Clark, described the campaign as having one objective – to force the Serbs to the negotiating table. With contacts now re-established with Iranian negotiators, including talks in Geneva on Friday with European countries, Trump himself has suggested there is more time for diplomacy to run. Even if Iran is forced to a nuclear deal, Israel may find it comes with heavy hidden costs, not least the potential for survival of a clerical regime with every reason to be even more hostile to Israel and Israelis, and the limitations of Israeli military power, perhaps, exposed. 'If Khamenei has the sense to step back, if America doesn't come in,' says Dodge, 'then Israel has stuck its finger in a hornets' nest.'
