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”).

The Belgian economy remains vulnerable to the insolvency of significant industrial entities. All creditors - suppliers, customers, contractors alike - should act swiftly to ascertain their position vis-à-vis the bankruptcy estate. It's vital to take proactive steps:

• Can I rely on a retention of title to reclaim my goods?
• Will my pending orders still be delivered?
• Is my contract terminated?
• Should I submit a claim in the estate?

In the recent decision of Ashok Dattatray Atre & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.1 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has reiterated that the extension of payment timelines under a resolution plan does not constitute a modification thereof, and the National Company Law Tribunal has the power to grant such extension even without the express concurrence of the committee of creditors (“CoC”).

Brief Facts

In 2023, we saw an increase in both voluntary administration and receivership appointments in Australia. In the context of Australia's economic climate this was unsurprising — debtor companies were grappling with volatile markets, supply chain disruptions and uncertain economic conditions, and secured lenders were invoking either or both of these regimes as a means of protecting their investments.

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.

In Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (OP3 International)¹ the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the trigger for when the director's duty to consider the interests of creditors is engaged (referred to in the judgment as the Creditor Duty).

The Court held that:

This article will survey the structural, strategic, and tactical ways by which a major corporate defendant may successfully manage its way through the particularly American corporate challenge of being targeted by the plaintiffs' bar in mass tort filings. I have spent most of my professional career trying to answer this question. Over the last 22 years, my company, KCIC, has focused on providing services to corporations in managing mass-tort liabilities and maximizing their related insurance assets.

The opinion is Bruce v. Citigroup Inc., Case No. 22-1000, decided August 2, 2023, by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The opinion addresses this question:

In the recent decision in Blockchain Group Company Limited (in liquidation) v. PKF Hong Kong Limited¹, Le Pichon DHCJ decided that despite an error resulting in a protective writ naming the defendant as a limited company and formerly a firm, the relevant provisions to amend a party’s name could not be used to essentially replace the limited company with the firm.