• “While the pre-petition Debtor may have consented to waiver of the automatic stay in favor of [secured creditor], . . . other creditors did not”; and
• “The automatic stay is designed to protect both debtors and creditors alike.”

In re DJK Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 24-60126, Doc. 196, at 13 (Bankr., S.D. Ill., February 13, 2025).

In re DJK Enterprises

Parkside’s Derek J Y Chan, instructed by Tanner De Witt, acted for the successful Plaintiffs, China City Construction (International) Co., Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and Dingway Investment Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation), both acting through their liquidators, in obtaining an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”) to restrain China City Construction & Development Co., (HK) Limited from continuing proceedings (“the Beijing proceedings”) it had commenced in the People

Small business restructurings (SBR), which allow companies with less than $1 million in liabilities (other than employee entitlements) to restructure their unsecured debts, are increasing in popularity. SBRs now amount to about 25 per cent of all monthly company insolvencies, and outnumber voluntary administrations.

In this article, from knowledge gained in advising small business restructuring practitioners, and from wider industry commentary, we discuss some of the good, and not so good, aspects of the SBR regime.

The good

The case of SBP 2 S.À.R.L v 2 Southbank Tenant Limited [2025] EWHC 16 (Ch) highlights the importance of careful drafting and robust legal advice when looking to forfeit a lease.

Background

In the March 2025 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.

The judgement of Hodge Malek KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, in Marko Ventures Ltd v London Antiaging Clinic Ltd [2025] EWHC 340 (Ch) deals with a contested application for an administration order under para 12(1)(c) Sch B1 Insolvency Act 1986. The order appointing joint administrators was sought in respect of London Antiaging Clinic Ltd by Marko Ventures Ltd, the majority shareholder in and principal funder of the company, which runs a health, beauty and wellbeing clinic in London.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has caused significant changes in all areas of Ukrainian life, and litigation is no exception. Some legal provisions that had previously been fully operational lost their relevance with the onset of martial law, and vice versa – a significant number of issues began to require regulation by the state. The bankruptcy sector in Ukraine has also been affected by this issue, and the legislator has faced a number of issues that have arisen and need to be resolved within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.

The appointment of an independent director is a powerful tool for private credit lenders. The appointment is designed to introduce a voice of neutrality and fairness into the board’s decision-making process with the hope and expectation that independence from the controlling shareholder enables the board to drive toward viable value-maximizing strategies. Often times, the independent director is vested with exclusive authority (or veto rights) over a range of significant corporate decisions, including a sale, restructuring and the decision to file a bankruptcy case.

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“EWCA”) recently handed down its decision in Servis-Terminal LLC v Valeriy Ernestovich Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 clarifying that, as a matter of English law, an “unrecognised” foreign judgment cannot be relied upon as a basis to commence insolvency proceedings.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides for the avoidance of certain transactions where they have been entered into for the purpose of defrauding creditors, has a broad application and covers not only transactions entered into by the debtor personally, but also those entered into via the debtor's company: El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4.