On April 16, 2024, Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, delivered the Liberal Government’s federal budget, Fairness for Every Generation (Budget 2024). The most notable tax measure in Budget 2024 is the proposal to increase the capital gains inclusion rate from one-half to two-thirds, for capital gains realized on or after June 25, 2024. This measure will apply to all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts, but only will apply to individuals in respect of the portion of capital gains realized in the year that exceeds $250,000.

Investors in the Australian market are more sophisticated than ever and – unsurprisingly – so too are the restructuring transactions being promoted by these investors. One such transaction is the credit bid. While not a transaction structure that is formally recognised in Australia, a credit bid is a valuable tool in a financier's playbook that can be implemented to achieve a return where the original financing is unable to be repaid in accordance with its terms.

Credit Bidding

As discussed in our prior blog entitled “New York’s Sovereign Debt Restructuring Proposals,”[1] three bills were introduced in the New York state legislature to overhaul the way sovereign debt restructurings are handled in New York. Those bills sought to implement a comprehensive mechanism for restructuring sovereign debt, limit recovery on certain sovereign debt claims, and amend the champerty defense.

In today's globalised economy, local recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings can be essential for the successful implementation of cross-border restructurings. This is particularly relevant in Australia — a popular host for foreign investment and global corporate groups with local assets.

Overview

In the recent decision of Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership v NewGrange Energy Inc, 2024 ABKB 214 (“NewGrange”), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench clarified when gross overriding royalties (“GOR”) can be vested out of a debtor company’s estate pursuant to a reverse vesting order (“RVO”). The Court allowed GORs to be vested off under the Applicant’s, Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership (“Invico”), proposed RVO, finding the GORs to be mere contractual rights and not proper interests in land.

Bygge- og anlægsbranchen har i de seneste år oplevet en kraftig stigning i antallet af konkurser og toppede foreløbigt i 2023 med hele 1.282 erklærede konkurser. Da konkurserne ofte er forbundet med store tab, hvis de indtræder under et igangværende byggeri, har tendensen i stigende grad aktualiseret en belysning af de muligheder, der er for at sikre sig imod sådanne tab.

In the recent decision of the Anjani Kumar Prashar (Suspended Director of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Limited) v. Manab Dutta1, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that the auction purchaser would also be a financial creditor vis‐à‐vis the creditors of the entity whose assets were purchased by the auction purchaser.

Is it possible for a debtor company to issue debt (such as bonds) and contractually agree for that debt to rank lower in priority than debts owed by a company to other unsecured creditors? This article examines the commercial uses of subordinated debt agreements, and considers how courts in the offshore jurisdictions of the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda would treat a subordinated debt agreement in a winding-up.

Several significant judicial decisions and legislative updates occurred in 2023 that are relevant to commercial lenders, businesses and restructuring professionals. This bulletin summarizes the key developments of 2023 and highlights areas of significance to be aware of in 2024.

1. Priority Scheme

In 2023, several cases and legislative updates raised important questions regarding the priority scheme in insolvency proceedings.

Environmental Priorities

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that “pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b).” In other words, a pure omission (i.e., where a speaker says nothing) cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b–5, even if such an omission could constitute a violation of Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”).