• Mon - Fri 9.00 - 19.00
Open

Category Archives: Business

Tamara's World  /  Blog  /  Business
28 Oct 2026
UAE Commercial Companies Law amendments

UAE Commercial Companies Law Amendments: What Founders Gain

Categories Business

The UAE Commercial Companies Law amendments in Federal Decree-Law No. 20 of 2025 change how founders can structure share capital, convert a company and move between jurisdictions. The Ministry of Economy and Tourism, in a statement published on 6 January 2026, says the decree amends 15 articles of Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021 and adds one new article on transferring a company’s commercial register registration. Several of the changes still depend on Cabinet or ministerial decisions, so founders should treat them as a framework rather than a finished rulebook.

Contents

More flexible share structures

According to the ministry, LLCs can issue multiple quota classes and joint stock companies (JSCs) can issue multiple share classes subject to conditions; previously this was limited to public JSCs by Cabinet decision. Examples it lists include dividend shares, priority capital-recovery shares, preferred shares, shares with varying nominal values and restricted shares. The categories will be set by Cabinet decision. The law firm Kayrouz & Associates, in its own summary, likewise notes that the new share classes await implementing regulations.

Converting and moving a company

The ministry says companies can convert between legal forms while keeping their legal personality, and can transfer their commercial register registration between emirates, free zones and financial free zones without liquidation or re-incorporation. Conditions include compatible registration systems, no legal impediment, required approvals and publication of the transfer decision. It also says free zone and financial free zone companies can operate on the mainland through branches or representative offices.

Lock-ups, exits and shareholder rights

The lock-up on share disposal for private JSCs drops from two years to one, and a ministerial decision can reduce or waive it; private JSCs are exempt during a private placement or financial market listing. The ministry adds that drag-along and tag-along rights, forced-sale provisions and prior sale agreements can be written into the articles of LLCs and private JSCs. A new non-profit commercial company form is also created, with rules to be set by Cabinet decision.

What it means for a founder

As an illustration, not advice: an Indian software founder running a free zone company who wants to sell to mainland customers could, under the framework, use a mainland branch rather than a new entity, and an investor-backed startup could use preferred shares once the Cabinet decisions are issued. Check the current position with a licensed UAE adviser and your free zone authority before restructuring. Our company formation service page and the report on the Saudi Arabia foreign investor rules give regional context.

What happens next

The ministry says company registrations and licences are expected to rise 10 to 15 per cent in the first year after implementation. That is the government’s own projection, not an independent forecast. Watch for the Cabinet decisions on share classes and the non-profit form, and for the ministerial decision that will set in-kind valuation standards for contributions of assets other than cash. The ministry also says the amendments apply to foreign companies operating in or headquartered in the UAE and to branches or representative offices of free zone companies on the mainland, and that existing and future companies, including those in free zones, keep UAE nationality. For a founder choosing between a free zone and the mainland, the practical point is that these structural options are now written into the main law, even where the detailed rules are still to come. Until implementing decisions are issued, ask your licensing authority in writing which provisions it is applying.

Questions on the amendments

Which law was amended?

Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021 on Commercial Companies, by Federal Decree-Law No. 20 of 2025.

How many articles changed?

The ministry says 15 articles were amended and one added.

Can a company move between free zones and emirates?

The ministry says registration can be transferred between emirates, free zones and financial free zones without liquidation, subject to conditions.

What happens to the private JSC lock-up?

It drops from two years to one, and can be reduced or waived by ministerial decision.

Are multiple share classes available now?

The ministry says categories will be set by Cabinet decision, so check whether the decision has been issued.

Where do I start?

With your free zone authority or mainland licensing department, and a licensed UAE adviser.

Sources

Image: Dubai Marina skyline by CT Cooper, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

28 Oct 2026
Microsoft campus where the Microsoft voluntary buyout offer was announced

Microsoft Just Offered a Quarter of Its Workforce a Way Out

Categories Business, Tech

Microsoft sent a short note to employees this week. It could reshape a quarter of its workforce. The Microsoft voluntary buyout offer went out to roughly 60,000 workers on Monday. That is out of a global headcount of about 223,000 as of June. It is the company’s largest effort yet to cut costs without mass layoffs.

Chief people officer Amy Coleman described the offer in a note. Microsoft also published it on its company blog. She called it a way of “creating greater flexibility and, where possible, more ways for employees to shape their next chapter.” She added a blunt line: “The Voluntary Exit Offer is new for us.” TechCrunch confirmed the details with Microsoft on Monday, after Business Insider first reported the plan.

Who the Microsoft voluntary buyout offer actually covers

The offer targets employees at the vice president level and below. It covers select teams in the United States, Canada, India and the United Kingdom. Bloomberg reported that Xbox, Windows, Copilot and Finance are among the participating teams. Microsoft excluded some groups entirely. That includes staff in data centers and in sales and marketing roles. Eligible workers received an email on Monday with a link to their personal offer details. The terms track Microsoft’s standard severance package. They do not introduce a new formula.

This is not Microsoft’s first buyout round this year. Earlier in 2026, the company offered buyouts to retirement-age employees. More than 30% of the roughly 8,750 eligible workers took that deal. The new offer is far larger in scale. It also reaches deep into teams still central to Microsoft’s product roadmap, not just staff nearing retirement.

Why Microsoft is doing this instead of layoffs

A voluntary exit lets Microsoft trim headcount differently. It can skip some of the legal process, public backlash and severance disputes that often follow mass layoffs. Employees choose to leave rather than get selected for a cut. That spreads the decision across the workforce itself, not just Microsoft’s management. Microsoft has framed the move as part of a broader effort to “rework its workforce.” The company is pouring money into AI infrastructure and cloud capacity at the same time. Heavy capital spending on data centers and chips leaves less room in the budget. Headcount growth gets squeezed across every team at once, even at a company still growing revenue.

The timing lines up with a wider pattern across the sector. Tamara News covered the trillion-dollar earnings reports landing this same week from Microsoft’s peers. Investors are pressing every major tech company on how AI spending affects margins. A workforce reduction ahead of that scrutiny is unlikely to be a coincidence.

The visa angle few buyout stories mention

A voluntary exit offer does not sit in a vacuum for Microsoft’s foreign-born workforce. The company already lost part of its green card pipeline this year. The Department of Labor suspended PERM certifications affecting several large employers, a move Tamara News reported on in late October. Newsweek has also flagged H-1B visa uncertainty tied to the buyout. Workers on employer-sponsored visas generally get a limited window to find new sponsorship if they leave a role voluntarily. CNBC’s own reporting on the offer, which covered the announcement the same day, noted Microsoft has not detailed separate terms for visa-holding staff who accept it. The standard severance terms may not address that risk at all.

What happens once workers decide

Employees who receive the offer typically get a set window to accept or decline. That window often runs several weeks before the offer expires. Microsoft has not published an exact deadline publicly. What happens next depends heavily on uptake. If acceptance tracks closer to the 30% rate seen in the earlier retirement-age buyout, Microsoft keeps most of the 60,000 eligible staff. That would mean only a modest headcount reduction. If far more workers take the deal, Microsoft could face a bigger staffing gap than planned. That risk is highest on teams like Xbox and Windows, just as the company leans harder on AI products like Copilot.

Microsoft’s next earnings call will be the first real test of whether this buyout round shows up in the numbers investors are watching. Wall Street will want a headcount figure, not just a policy description. Expect analysts to ask about it directly on the call.

Office building illustrating the scale of the Microsoft voluntary buyout offer

FAQ: Microsoft voluntary buyout offer

How many Microsoft employees are eligible for the buyout?
Around 60,000 employees at the vice president level and below, on selected teams in the US, Canada, India and the UK, are eligible.

Is this the same as a layoff?
No. Employees choose whether to accept the offer. Microsoft is not selecting individuals for termination through this program.

Which teams are excluded?
Microsoft excluded staff in data centers and in sales and marketing roles from this round, based on reporting cited above.

Why is Microsoft offering buyouts now?
Microsoft has described it as part of a wider effort to cut costs and reshape its workforce as AI infrastructure spending grows.

Does this affect H-1B visa holders differently?
Visa-sponsored employees who leave voluntarily generally have a limited window to secure new sponsorship, which creates added risk the standard severance terms may not cover.

Has Microsoft done this before?
Yes. Microsoft offered a smaller buyout to retirement-age employees earlier in 2026, with just over 30% of eligible staff accepting.

Will Microsoft still hire while offering buyouts?
Microsoft has not said it is freezing hiring company-wide. Large employers often keep hiring in priority areas, such as AI infrastructure, even while trimming headcount elsewhere.

27 Oct 2026
A passport and visa documents on a desk, tied to the H-1B visa fee court fight over the $100,000 charge

The $100,000 H-1B Fee Is Dead for Now — But Don’t Celebrate Yet

Categories Business, Work Permits

The $100,000 fee the Trump administration tried to attach to many H-1B petitions remains blocked, but the H-1B visa fee court fight is nowhere near settled. On 24 July 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the federal government’s motion to pause a lower court ruling that had vacated the fee, according to reporting from SHRM. That leaves the fee unenforceable while the broader legal battle continues.

How the H-1B visa fee court fight got here

President Trump issued a proclamation on 19 September 2025 requiring an extra $100,000 payment for H-1B petitions processed through consular notification, a filing route commonly used by employers sponsoring workers applying from outside the United States. A Massachusetts district court, in a lawsuit brought by attorneys general from 20 states, ruled on 8 June 2026 that the fee effectively functioned as a tax and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing how agencies issue binding rules. US District Judge Leo Sorokin, who issued that ruling, found the fee exceeded the president’s authority, according to Staffing Industry’s reporting on the case. The district court then stayed its own ruling, which, somewhat counterintuitively, let USCIS keep collecting the fee while the government pursued its appeal.

What the appeals court actually ruled

That is where the First Circuit’s July decision changes the picture. The appeals court found the government unlikely to succeed in overturning the district court’s underlying ruling, and on that basis refused to let the fee collection continue during the appeal. Crucially, the court did not decide whether the $100,000 fee policy is ultimately lawful, only that the government hadn’t shown enough likelihood of winning to justify keeping it in force while the case plays out. That is a narrower, more procedural ruling than a final verdict on the fee’s legality, even though its practical effect right now is the same: employers don’t have to pay it.

What employers should actually do

For companies filing new H-1B petitions, including cap petitions, the immediate guidance is straightforward: the fee cannot currently be enforced, so petitions can move forward without it, though consulting immigration counsel before filing remains sensible given how quickly this status could change. For employers who already paid the fee before the ruling, the picture is murkier. They should hold on to proof of payment and wait for formal agency guidance, since it isn’t yet clear whether, or how, that money could be recovered. USCIS is expected to issue its own instructions on resuming H-1B filings in light of the ruling.

Why this almost certainly isn’t the end of it

One attorney quoted in the SHRM reporting expects the government to seek an emergency stay directly from the Supreme Court, which could act on such a request at any time regardless of the normal appeals calendar. If the Supreme Court grants a stay, the fee could come back into force while the underlying legal questions are still being litigated. The fee could also return outright if the government eventually wins its appeal, or if Congress passes legislation authorizing a similar charge through ordinary lawmaking rather than executive proclamation.

The broader legal landscape adds more uncertainty. Several related cases are still working their way through the courts, including State of California v. Markwayne Mullin, Chamber of Commerce v. DHS now on appeal at the DC Circuit, and Global Nurse Force v. Trump in the Northern District of California. Any one of those could shape how, or whether, a version of this fee eventually survives in some form.

What to watch in the weeks ahead

Watch for two things in the coming weeks: whether the government actually files for an emergency Supreme Court stay, and whether USCIS issues the formal filing guidance it’s expected to produce. Until either happens, H-1B sponsors can treat the $100,000 fee as paused rather than cancelled, and should plan filings with the possibility that the rules could shift again on short notice.

Frequently asked questions

Is the $100,000 H-1B fee currently in effect?
No. The fee cannot currently be enforced. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the federal government’s request to pause a lower court ruling that vacated the fee, so USCIS cannot collect it while the government’s appeal continues.

What did the First Circuit actually decide?
On 24 July 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay a 8 June 2026 district court order. It found the government unlikely to succeed on appeal, but it did not rule on whether the fee policy itself is ultimately lawful.

Where did the $100,000 H-1B fee come from?
President Trump issued a proclamation on 19 September 2025 requiring an extra $100,000 payment for H-1B petitions processed through consular notification. A Massachusetts district court later ruled on 8 June 2026 that the fee functioned as a tax and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Could the H-1B visa fee ruling still be overturned?
Yes. One attorney quoted in reporting on the case expects the government to seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court, which could act at any time. The fee could also return if the government wins its appeal outright, or if Congress separately authorizes it.

What should employers do if they already paid the fee?
Keep proof of payment and wait for formal USCIS guidance, since it remains unclear how the ruling affects an employer’s ability to recover money already paid. Employers currently filing new H-1B petitions can do so without the fee for now, though consulting immigration counsel first is advisable.

Are other lawsuits challenging similar fees?
Yes. Separate related cases, including State of California v. Markwayne Mullin, Chamber of Commerce v. DHS at the DC Circuit, and Global Nurse Force v. Trump in Northern California, remain pending and could affect how this fight ultimately resolves.

For more on how US work-visa policy has been shifting, see our coverage of the DHS proposal to end deference on work visa extensions and the PERM suspension affecting major employers.

Visa and passport paperwork relevant to the H-1B visa fee court fight

27 Oct 2026
A digital advertising billboard, illustrating the online ad market reshaped by the Google ad tech antitrust ruling

A Judge Just Spared Google From Breaking Up Its Ad Business — But Not From Changing It

Categories Business, Tech

Google will not be forced to sell off its advertising exchange, but it will have to change how that business operates. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema handed down her remedies decision in early September 2026, following an April 2025 finding that Google had operated an illegal monopoly in advertising technology. The Google ad tech antitrust ruling rejected the government’s push for a breakup while still ordering what AdExchanger described as “most of the parties’ proposed behavioral remedies.”

The Google ad tech antitrust ruling: what the judge rejected

The Department of Justice, joined by 17 states in a case first brought in January 2023, had pushed for Google to divest AdX, its ad exchange, and potentially DFP, its publisher ad server, both of which sit inside the Google Ad Manager suite. According to a summary from ValueAddVC, Brinkema also rejected a proposal to open-source DFP’s final auction logic and a contingent spinoff plan the DOJ had called the “DFP Remainder.” A structural breakup of that scale would have been one of the most significant antitrust remedies against a major tech company in decades, and its absence means Google keeps full ownership of the pieces that make up its ad tech stack. Notably, this is the second time in roughly a year that Google has avoided a structural remedy after a monopoly finding, following a similar outcome in its search antitrust case.

What Google will reportedly have to change

Instead of a breakup, the ruling leans on behavioral fixes, several of which mirror proposals Google itself had floated. Those include making real-time bid amounts for open web display ads sold through AdX visible to rival ad servers, which would let competitors see pricing information they currently can’t access. Google has also proposed phasing out its Unified Pricing Rules, a policy that currently requires publishers to set a single price floor across different bidders; ending it would let publishers set different floors for individual bidders in Google Ad Manager. A third change involves giving up so-called “first look” and “last look” privileges, bidding advantages that have let Google’s own exchange adjust open web display bids in ways rivals couldn’t match.

Separately, critics of Google’s ad tech dominance have pushed for AdX to be integrated into Prebid.org, an independent, publisher-governed header bidding system. Google has signalled support for that idea, though it remains unclear whether the court’s order actually requires it, since the full ruling had not been made public as of the September reporting.

Why the distinction between structural and behavioral remedies matters

A structural remedy, like a forced divestiture, permanently changes who owns what. A behavioral remedy instead changes how a company is allowed to operate while it keeps its existing structure, which means enforcement and monitoring become the real test of whether anything actually changes for competitors. Google remains bound to comply with whatever final behavioral remedies the court lays out, but the practical impact on rival ad servers and publishers will depend heavily on how strictly those rules are enforced once they take effect.

What comes next for Google’s ad business

At the time AdExchanger reported on the preview filing, the full scope of the ruling had not yet been made public. Both sides must submit a jointly proposed final judgment setting out the exact required practices within 30 days of the ruling, according to ValueAddVC’s reporting, and Google has reportedly signaled it will challenge even the behavioral remedies it was handed, raising the prospect of years of further appeals before anything changes for publishers and rival ad tech firms.

Frequently asked questions

Did Google have to break up its ad business?
No. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the Department of Justice’s proposal that Google divest its AdX ad exchange and possibly its DFP ad server. Instead, she ordered Google to change how it runs the business through behavioral remedies.

What is the Google ad tech antitrust ruling actually about?
It follows an April 2025 federal court finding that Google operated an illegal monopoly in ad tech. Judge Brinkema’s September 2026 ruling decided what remedies should follow that finding, choosing operational reforms over a forced breakup.

What changes is Google expected to make to AdX?
Google has proposed making real-time bid amounts for open web display ads sold through AdX available to rival ad servers, phasing out its Unified Pricing Rules so publishers can set different price floors for different bidders, and dropping its “first look” and “last look” bidding advantages.

Has the full ruling been made public?
As of the reporting in September 2026, only a preview of the decision had been released. The full scope of the required remedies, and whether Google will appeal, had not been confirmed.

Why does this ruling matter for publishers and advertisers?
Behavioral remedies aimed at AdX and Google Ad Manager could change how fairly rival ad servers can compete for the same inventory, which affects how much publishers earn from ad space and how efficiently advertisers can buy it.

Is this the same case as Google’s search antitrust ruling?
No. This case concerns Google’s advertising technology business specifically, decided by Judge Brinkema in Virginia federal court, and is separate from other antitrust cases Google has faced over its search and app store businesses.

For related coverage of how regulators are treating major tech platforms, see our reports on the EU AI Act’s new enforcement powers and Apple’s trade secrets win against OpenAI.

A city billboard advertisement, the kind of market shaped by the Google ad tech antitrust ruling

27 Oct 2026
A stock exchange trading floor, the kind of venue tied to the Anthropic IPO valuation target reporting

Anthropic Is Quietly Planning the Biggest IPO in History — Here’s the Number Investors Are Chasing

Categories Business, Tech

Anthropic is reportedly working toward a stock listing that could value the AI company at up to $2 trillion, which would make it the largest initial public offering in history by a wide margin. According to a Bloomberg report relayed by Yahoo Finance on 2 October 2026, prospective investors see a fair-value range of $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion. The Anthropic IPO valuation target has shifted since earlier reporting, and the company itself has not confirmed either the number or the date.

The Anthropic IPO valuation target, from October to a pre-Thanksgiving debut

Investors had previously expected Anthropic to list in October 2026 at a valuation of $2 trillion or more. That timeline has since moved: the company is now reportedly aiming for a listing before the Thanksgiving holiday on 26 November, with bankers potentially starting the roadshow the week of 9 November. Anthropic is said to be hosting investors at its San Francisco headquarters in the run-up to that window. The company is still said to be targeting a debut by year-end at the latest, even if the exact week keeps moving.

Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are reportedly leading the offering. Anthropic is also said to be considering super-voting shares that would hand CEO Dario Amodei and his fellow co-founders outsized control after the company goes public, a structure increasingly common among founder-led tech listings.

The numbers behind the number

Anthropic’s valuation path has moved fast. A Series A round in May 2021 valued the company at roughly $623 million, according to research published by GraniteShares, an ETF issuer with its own commercial interest in AI-linked products. By May 2026, a $65 billion Series H round put the company’s post-money valuation at $965 billion. Anthropic confidentially submitted a draft S-1 registration to the SEC on 1 June 2026.

On the revenue side, Anthropic reportedly posted about $4.6 billion in 2025 revenue, up from $386 million the year before, with the growth accelerating sharply through 2026: GraniteShares cites an annualised run rate climbing from roughly $14 billion in February to around $30 billion by April, and reportedly past $65 billion by the end of July. Second-quarter 2026 revenue came in above $11.5 billion, against $787 million a year earlier, and the company reportedly reached positive adjusted operating income in that quarter. A $2 trillion valuation would work out to roughly 31 times that run rate and about 10 times an internally projected 2028 revenue figure of $190 billion to $200 billion.

Why the net loss looks so much bigger than it sounds

Anthropic’s 2025 net loss has been reported at nearly $42 billion, a figure that sounds alarming next to $4.6 billion in revenue. More than $34 billion of that loss, however, came from accounting adjustments tied to the fair value of liabilities rather than cash actually leaving the business. The company’s separate operating loss for 2025, the more standard measure of whether the underlying business is burning cash, was reported at a bit over $8 billion, a large number but a very different one from $42 billion.

What to watch before any S-1 goes public

Everything here still rests on unnamed sources and a process both Bloomberg and GraniteShares describe as fluid. Amazon holds roughly 21% of Anthropic and Alphabet about 15%, meaning both companies have a direct financial stake in how this listing turns out. The reporting also notes that rival OpenAI has reportedly postponed its own IPO, and that both companies face scrutiny over AI-related security concerns. The real test comes once Anthropic’s S-1 becomes public and investors get an actual prospectus to pick apart, rather than a run rate relayed secondhand through anonymous sources.

Frequently asked questions

What valuation is Anthropic reportedly targeting for its IPO?
Bloomberg sources cited by Yahoo Finance put prospective investors’ fair-value range at $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion. If reached, that would be the largest IPO valuation in history, though Anthropic has not officially confirmed a number.

When is the Anthropic IPO valuation target expected to go public?
Reports now point to a listing before the Thanksgiving holiday on 26 November 2026, with a possible roadshow starting the week of 9 November. Anthropic had earlier been expected to list in October, and the company still says it aims to debut by year-end at the latest.

Which banks are leading Anthropic’s IPO?
Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are reportedly leading the offering, according to Bloomberg sources relayed by Yahoo Finance.

How big is Anthropic’s business right now?
The company reportedly posted about $4.6 billion in 2025 revenue, up from $386 million in 2024, and reached positive adjusted operating income in the second quarter of 2026, even as its overall 2025 net loss topped $40 billion on paper.

Why did Anthropic report such a large net loss if business is growing?
More than $34 billion of the reported 2025 net loss came from accounting adjustments tied to the fair value of liabilities, not from actual cash leaving the business. The company’s 2025 operating loss, a separate and smaller figure, was reported at over $8 billion.

Is the $2 trillion figure confirmed?
No. Both the valuation and the timeline come from unnamed sources cited by Bloomberg, and the reporting itself notes that the process remains fluid and that dates are subject to change.

For related coverage, see our earlier look at Anthropic’s third-quarter revenue and cash flow turn and OpenAI’s own recent policy reversal.

Historic stock exchange floor illustrating the scale of the Anthropic IPO valuation target

1 2 3 4 … 36