Substantial Contribution to the Case

On June 6, 2014, in Lewis Brothers Bakeries Incorporated and Chicago Baking Company v.

Background

Yesterday the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) published  the final text of some significant changes to the Listing Rules.1 The changes, which will come into force on 16 May 2014, are intended to enhance the effectiveness of the UK listing regime, particularly in situations where the rights of minority shareholders are at risk of being abused, and to address concerns in relation to the potential influence of 

controlling shareholders on UK listed companies, while ensuring that London remains an attractive listing 

venue.

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.

Assignees of Loan Only Entitled to One Collective Vote on Plan

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.