Cameron Lindsay Duncan and others v Amazingtech Pte. Ltd. (Under Interim Judicial Management)

AmazingTech Pte Ltd, incorporated in 2016, ran a digital asset trading platform. In July 2025 the Monetary Authority of Singapore rejected its licence application, received customer complaints about delays, and identified that the company may not have held sufficient assets or properly segregated customer assets. The company's sole director was charged with fraudulent trading. A group of creditors (the 2nd to 8th non-parties) applied in Originating Application No 828 of 2025 for judicial management, and on 15 August 2025 the court appointed interim judicial managers to assess whether judicial management could achieve its statutory objectives. Another group (the 1st and 9th non-parties), who said they were contemplating a class action against the company's management, had opposed that application.

The interim judicial managers concluded that the company should be wound up and applied in Companies Winding Up No 356 of 2025, nominating themselves as liquidators. Everyone agreed on winding up, but the two creditor groups disagreed on the liquidators. The 2nd to 8th non-parties backed the interim judicial managers, submitting that 203 creditors with about S$61.4m in claims supported them; the 1st and 9th non-parties nominated alternatives, submitting support from 233 creditors with about S$45.4m in claims. Each side alleged conduct that could suggest bias, including an email from counsel for the 1st and 9th non-parties saying they wanted a liquidator who was friendly to them.

1. Whether the company should be wound up.
2. How the court should choose between competing nominees for liquidator, and what weight to give creditor support, expertise and independence.
3. What approach applies where one set of nominees are already the company's interim judicial managers.

Winding up was uncontroversial. The court accepted the interim judicial managers' report that the company was insolvent, had ceased operations, could not lawfully resume without a licence and had no viable part of its business to save.

On the choice of liquidators, the court applied the established factors: the majority creditors' preference, the nominees' skill and expertise, and their actual and perceived independence. Both nominees had broad creditor support; the method used to gather support for the interim judicial managers, treating non-responses as support, was practical and reasonable, and although they polled higher, numbers were not decisive. Both sets of nominees were adequately qualified; the interim judicial managers' in-house crypto expertise was at best a marginal advantage over the alternatives' use of a third-party consultant.

Neither side established a reasonable perception of bias. The short delays in sending information to the 1st and 9th non-parties were explained, and the email they complained of merely stated what the court had decided. Counsel's statement about wanting a friendly liquidator was an unwise choice of words, but did not make the alternative nominees reasonably appear biased or conflicted.

The deciding factor was continuity. All else being equal, existing interim judicial managers are generally appointed as liquidators. They had logged 303.7 manhours, much of it on records and assets that would form a foundation for the liquidation, so appointing them avoided duplication and saved time and costs. The court stressed that this was a comparative exercise and not a reflection on the alternative nominees.

The High Court granted the winding-up application as orally amended and, exercising its discretion under s 134(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, appointed the interim judicial managers as liquidators. The applicants in the judicial management application were given leave to withdraw it, with costs and consequential orders to be heard later.