Full Breakdown
Radiant World Placed Under Interim Judicial Management in Singapore
By Drooid · · How we work
Court Orders Interim Judicial Management of Radiant World
A Singapore court granted creditor Mizuho Bank’s application and appointed three KPMG restructuring executives—Toh Ai Ling, Adrian Chan and Tan Yen Chiaw—as interim judicial managers of Radiant World Corporation Pte Ltd, removing founder and chairman Pinkesh Nahar from control of the trader’s key operating entity.
Background & Context
Radiant World, an iron-ore and metals trader, has been under scrutiny since July 2026 after lenders and counterparties, including Glencore, alleged the firm used falsified invoices and emails to obtain receivables-financing facilities. Mizuho filed an application in August claiming the trader fabricated emails purportedly from Glencore to confirm US$95.5 million (or US$97.3 million, per a court filing) in receivables it had financed. The trader denies wrongdoing, describing the allegations as a commercial dispute with Glencore.
Key Figures & Groups
- Pinkesh Nahar – Founder and former chairman.
- Toh Ai Ling, Adrian Chan, Tan Yen Chiaw – KPMG interim judicial managers.
- Mizuho Bank – Applicant.
- Kunal Ahuja – Former Glencore employee, later Vitol India director, who acknowledged specific transactions.
- Jefferies Financial Group – Receivables-financing lender.
- Glencore International – Alleged victim of falsified documents.
Timeline
- Sept 16 – Nahar signs an affidavit in Mumbai, attaching a spreadsheet of lender exposures.
- Sept 23 – Hearing adjourned; decision scheduled for the following afternoon.
- Sept 24 – Court issues the interim judicial-management order.
- Sept 21 – KBC Group spokesperson states it has “no exposure to Radiant.”
- Sept 8 – Radiant’s separate financial statement shows liabilities of US$599 million.
- Oct 1 – Closed hearing on Mizuho’s application scheduled.
Data & Statistics
- Mizuho alleges fraud involving US$97.3 million in iron-ore receivables.
- GTR reports alleged falsified invoices total US$95.5 million.
- Radiant’s disclosed assets total roughly US$1.07 billion, including US$36 million of inventory, US$27 million of cash and US$1.007 billion of trade receivables.
- Nahar’s spreadsheet lists US$870 million (S$1.1 billion) outstanding to six lenders, with Jefferies Financial Group and Intesa Sanpaolo as the two largest exposures.
- Deutsche Bank’s maximum exposure is US$102.59 million.
- The only significant current physical asset is US$33.5 million of iron-ore stock.
Official Statements & Responses
- KPMG – No public comment on its appointment.
- Radiant World – Nahar argued the company remains solvent because most financing facilities are receivables-based, with payment due from customers.
- Deutsche Bank – “The US$102.59 million claim represents our maximum exposure. We are pursuing all available recovery options. We do not comment on provisioning for individual situations.”
Criticism & Opposition
A Jefferies lawyer, citing the affidavit, described Radiant’s alleged invoice manipulation as a “very large-scale fraud,” questioning the reliability of the trade-receivables figures presented by the founder.
On-the-Ground Reports
Singapore police raided Radiant’s offices in August as part of the document-fraud investigation.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Fraud amounts vary between US$95.5 million (Mizuho) and US$97.3 million (court filing).
- Discrepancies exist between the September 8 liability figure (US$599 million) and the affidavit’s US$870 million exposure list.
- The spreadsheet lacks dates and omits related-entity exposures, leaving full creditor risk unclear.
Verbatim Quotes
- “As to the transactions now questioned by Intesa, Mr Kunal Ahuja, formerly of Glencore and subsequently of Vitol, acknowledged the relevant transaction,” — Pinkesh Nahar
- “I spent over two days staying at Kunal’s house, during which Kunal provided me with detailed explanations and guidance on how the derivative trading was intended to work,” — Pinkesh Nahar
What’s Next
A further closed hearing on Mizuho’s application is set for Oct 1, where the court will consider whether to maintain, modify, or terminate the interim judicial-management arrangement.