WHITE OAK TRADE FINANCE ASSETCO 1, LLC v RHODIUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING USA, INC.

Facts

White Oak Trade Finance Assetco 1, LLC, the creditor that had brought the winding up of Rhodium International Trading USA, Inc, applied in Companies Winding Up No 32 of 2022 (Summons No 949 of 2025) for an additional liquidator to be appointed. The reason given was that the existing liquidator was said not to be able to answer questions at a deposition in proceedings in the United States, due in the week of 14 April 2025. The court was told that an attempt to shield the liquidator from the deposition had failed. The proposed additional liquidator came from the same firm and was apparently the person with actual knowledge of the relevant dealings.

Counsel sought an urgent hearing date on 10 April 2025 and the matter was heard on Friday, 11 April 2025. At the hearing counsel tried to add further reasons for the appointment. The company was not represented.

Issues

1. Whether the application was properly brought on an urgent basis.
2. Whether it was appropriate and proper to appoint an additional liquidator so that he could give evidence at a deposition in the United States.

Holding

Aidan Xu J dismissed the application for the appointment of an additional liquidator. He directed the existing liquidator to file, by 25 April 2025, an affidavit explaining his work in the liquidation, including how he supervised his associates and officers and managed the matters arising, so that the court could assess the conduct of the liquidation and consider what other consequences might follow.

Reasoning

On urgency, the judge said the timelines of the US proceedings would have been known to the applicant and its advisers, who could have planned ahead instead of pressing the court for a date within four days.

On the substance, the judge explained that an additional liquidator is normally appointed to bring in specialist expertise or because the work proves larger than expected, and always to further the liquidation. Such an appointment assumes the original liquidator can still carry out his own role. Here the appointment had nothing to do with the liquidation itself and seemed to make up for a shortfall that should have been covered by the liquidator already in office. A liquidator need not know every detail, but should know what is happening and why, and be able to answer questions about the work, whether at a deposition or in an affidavit. The late extra reasons, if genuine, should have led to an earlier application.

The judge accepted that the creditor's interests matter, but they did not displace the public interest in proper supervision of the process and in court appointees properly carrying out their functions. Any difficulty in the US proceedings was separate from the liquidation and was for the liquidator to manage.

From the judgment