November 7, 2026
Beirut – “Lebanon Debate”
Prepared by: Michel Kanbour
The exit of investors from the Lebanese market represents a milestone whose dimensions go beyond the boundaries of real estate and hotels offered for sale, highlighting a deeper crisis related to the mechanisms of government dealing with investment disputes. The Al Habtoor Group case does not represent a sudden event that emerged with the announcement of the sale of assets in November. Rather, it is the culmination of a long process of complaints and the cessation of operations leading to international arbitration, over a period of time during which the opportunity to contain the crisis was lost.
The group is basing its dispute on an official notification it sent to the Lebanese state in January 2024 under the investment agreement concluded between Lebanon and the UAE, seeking an amicable settlement. The complaint centers on banking restrictions that prevented access to and transfer of funds, in addition to damages resulting from official procedures and failures to protect investments. On the other hand, on January 28, 2026, the group announced the cessation of its work and the termination of its employees’ contracts, citing the lack of stability and what it described as campaigns, attacks, and threats. This was followed on November 2 with the decision to sell hotels, real estate, and lands independently, without specifying a timetable or a total value.
In light of this escalation, the question arises about the absence of an official response to complaints. Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora indicated that Lebanese officials did not take the initiative to communicate with Khalaf Al Habtoor to find out the challenges facing him, which ultimately led to the closure of institutions and the dismissal of hundreds of workers. Although the group’s financial claims, which exceed $1.7 billion, remain a matter of dispute and are not compensation by a judicial ruling, the development of the file led in April 2026 to submit an arbitration request, and it was registered in May with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, while the arbitration panel was formed in October coinciding with the state’s use of a law firm to defend it.
However, resorting to legal channels and law firms comes at a late stage and is not sufficient to restore a closed institution, a lost job, or eroded trust, which reflects the absence of early treatment to contain disputes. The Lebanese experience is compared to the experiences of other countries that succeeded in managing similar crises through prior negotiation, such as Greece with the “Eldorado Gold” company, and Tanzania and Pakistan with the “Barrick Gold” company, where joint dialogues and settlements led to the continuation of projects and the preservation of the interests of the parties, which proves that early negotiation does not represent a concession, and that letting disputes escalate does not express the protection of the state’s interests.
The repercussions of the dispute are not limited to the legal and material aspects, but rather extend to hundreds of workers who lost their jobs outside of arbitration papers, in addition to institutions related to the hotel, real estate, and entertainment sectors in a labor market suffering from widespread fragility. Whether the case ends with a court ruling or a settlement, the biggest challenge facing the Lebanese state remains the message it sends to investors in light of the delay in responding to complaints and the absence of effective action until after the doors close.
