Mizuho Bank, Ltd. v Radiant World Corporation Pte. Ltd.

Radiant World Corporation Pte Ltd, a Singapore metals and minerals trader in the Radiant group, obtained receivables financing from several banks. Under a June 2026 agreement, Mizuho Bank, Ltd paid it US$95,514,771 for receivables said to be owed by Glencore International AG for iron ore sales. After press reports that other traders had stopped dealing with the group over concerns about invalid documents presented to banks, Mizuho asked the company to get Glencore's confirmation. The company forwarded an email said to be from Glencore confirming the debts, but Glencore told Mizuho it had no record of the invoices, had not written that email, did not receive notice of assignment, and considered the communications fraudulently generated.

Mizuho demanded that the company repurchase the receivables and, when it did not, served a statutory demand for US$97,281,235.05. Deutsche Bank AG, Singapore Branch and Intesa Sanpaolo SpA served statutory demands after the buyers named in their financed invoices, including Vitol and Glencore, said they did not recognise them. None was paid. In HC/OA 946/2026 Mizuho applied for judicial management of the company, and in HC/SUM 2669/2026 it sought the appointment of interim judicial managers pending that hearing. The company denied any fraud, relied on a long trading relationship with Glencore, and pointed to its own claim against Glencore entities in HC/OC 836/2026.

1. Whether there was a prima facie case that the company was or was likely to become unable to pay its debts
2. Whether there was a prima facie case that judicial management could achieve one of its statutory purposes
3. Whether protection of the company's assets and business warranted interim judicial managers
4. Who should be appointed as interim judicial managers

To displace the presumption of inability to pay arising from an unpaid statutory demand, the company had to show a substantial and bona fide dispute. It did not do so for Mizuho's debt. The repurchase clause did not require a court finding of fraud first. The company offered only general allegations against Glencore despite claiming "irrefutable" evidence, never produced its own notices of assignment, gave no explanation for the disputed Glencore email, and had replied to Mizuho's demand by speaking of a payment plan and repaying lenders in full, which the court read as an implicit concession. Deutsche Bank's demand independently supported the presumption; Intesa's experience was consistent with what the court called a prima facie pattern of fraud. A management statement showing solvency carried little weight given doubts about its receivables and related-party debts, and the claim against Glencore was speculative.

Judicial management had a real prospect of achieving a better realisation than liquidation, including orderly sale of inventory, and of making a creditor compromise more likely, since counterparties had lost confidence in management. Several creditors supported the application and none objected.

Interim managers were urgently needed to investigate the company's affairs and restore outside confidence; the company's offer of account monitors without an investigative role did not meet that need. Because the Deloitte network audited Glencore entities sued by the company, appointing Deloitte nominees would raise concerns of perceived independence, so the court appointed the unopposed KPMG alternatives.

The High Court allowed the application in HC/SUM 2669/2026 and ordered that three insolvency practitioners of KPMG Services Pte Ltd be appointed joint and several interim judicial managers of the company pending the hearing of OA 946, with the usual ancillary orders. It declined to appoint Mizuho's first-choice nominees from Deloitte.