Mitigating Risk in African Investments

Lewis Bros. Bakeries, Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp. (In re Interstate Bakeries Corp.)

The end of a legal saga

Voss v. Knotts et al.

In a concise, unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a copyright suit on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing.  Voss v. Knotts et al., Case No. 12-56168 (9th Cir., Apr. 8, 2014) (per curiam).

As is well known, the right to credit bid is the entitlement of a secured lender to bid the amount of its outstanding claims at the sale of its collateral. If the secured lender places the winning bid, no money is exchanged and the purchase price is offset against the existing claims. Credit bidding provides an important right to secured lenders in ensuring that their collateral is not sold for a depressed value. If a secured lender thinks its collateral is being sold too cheaply, it has the option of taking the collateral in exchange for some or all its claims.

Welcome to the first issue of International News for 2014. In this issue we focus on employee benefits.

First, however, in our Features section, we consider a number of ways of mitigating risk in African investments. As Africa becomes increasingly developed, investment opportunities are becoming increasingly appealing, but investors must still act wisely.

The Financial Crisis, a difficult market situation and a tense liquidity status have led to remarkable difficulties for mid-sized businesses within the past years. Strategic and financial investors have and continue to utilize these circumstances to acquire interesting distressed companies for comparatively moderate purchase prices.

In order to benefit from these circumstances, investors need to understand how to avoid or minimize the risks of liability related to such acquisitions.

Introduction

Several recent legal developments will likely impact acquisition finance.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Jaffe v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.^,1 recently held that a U.S. bankruptcy court is not required under principles of comity to blindly apply foreign law to assets located in the U.S. of a foreign debtor whose principal insolvency proceeding is outside the U.S. Instead, bankruptcy courts must balance the interests of the affected U.S. parties with the those of the foreign debtor. In this case, the balancing required the application of U.S. law to the foreign debtor’s U.S. assets, not German law as applied in the foreign proceeding.