A fund linked to Jefferies Financial Group has secured a Singapore asset-freezing order against iron ore trader Radiant World and its founder, adding another major legal setback for the commodities company as lenders and trading partners intensify efforts to protect themselves from potential losses.
LAM Trade Finance Group II, in which Jefferies holds a minority stake, went to Singapore’s Supreme Court seeking protection over assets belonging to Radiant World and founder Pinkesh Nahar. The move follows a worldwide freezing order obtained in London last week covering Radiant, Nahar and entities connected to Sapphire Minmetals. The Singapore proceedings also name Sapphire and its chairman Rakesh Sethi.
The legal action highlights the rapidly escalating financial pressure surrounding Radiant World, once a fast-growing participant in the global iron ore trade. Several banks have frozen accounts or restricted credit facilities, while major commodity companies have reduced or ended their relationships with the trader amid concerns over the validity of documents and invoices used to support financing.
Radiant World has denied wrongdoing and has not been accused of a criminal offense as a result of the allegations. The company and Nahar have maintained that their business practices meet legal and commercial standards. The latest court actions therefore represent creditor attempts to preserve assets while disputes and investigations continue, rather than a final determination that fraud occurred.
The scale of Jefferies’ exposure makes the dispute particularly significant. The Financial Times reported that the Jefferies-linked fund has exposure approaching $500 million to Radiant World, Nahar and Sapphire-related interests. A London High Court freezing order was reportedly granted for as much as $499 million, making it one of the most substantial creditor actions against the group so far.
The exposure is connected to Point Bonita, a private-credit strategy within Jefferies’ asset-management operations that specializes in trade and invoice financing. The fund began financing Radiant World in 2021, with its exposure growing from roughly $35 million to hundreds of millions of dollars over the following years, according to people familiar with the matter.
Radiant’s financial difficulties became more acute after lenders began pulling back. Point Bonita reportedly stopped rolling existing facilities as it dealt with investor redemption pressure following the collapse of auto-parts company First Brands Group, another borrower that had generated substantial exposure for Jefferies. The withdrawal of financing contributed to liquidity problems at Radiant, according to people familiar with the situation.
The dispute is no longer limited to Jefferies. Singapore-based trade-finance company Incomlend has sued Radiant World and Nahar for more than $34 million in Singapore. The case is described in court documents as involving alleged deceit and conspiracy by unlawful means. Mizuho Bank has also taken legal steps concerning management of Radiant’s Singapore operations.
Singapore authorities are separately investigating Radiant World after receiving reports concerning the company, although police have not disclosed the nature or scope of the investigation. The existence of an investigation does not establish criminal liability, and there has been no public announcement of charges against Radiant or its executives.
Another important issue involves Sapphire Minmetals. Glencore Chief Executive Gary Nagle has said the commodities giant considers Radiant World and Sapphire to be part of the same group. Sethi has disputed that characterization, maintaining that Sapphire and Radiant are separate businesses. The distinction could become significant as creditors attempt to determine which assets can be reached through legal proceedings.
The London and Singapore proceedings demonstrate how quickly concerns surrounding a trading company can spread through the financial system. Commodity traders often rely heavily on short-term financing, bank credit and confidence among counterparties. Once lenders become uncertain about underlying invoices or transactions, the resulting withdrawal of financing can create a liquidity squeeze even before any allegation is resolved in court.
For Jefferies, the Radiant World dispute also comes at a sensitive time. The bank has already faced scrutiny over its exposure to First Brands through Point Bonita. Jefferies has denied fraud allegations in disputes connected with that case and has described related lawsuits as without merit. The additional Radiant exposure puts further attention on the due-diligence and risk-management practices surrounding its private-credit operations.
The Singapore asset freeze gives Jefferies’ fund additional legal protection while the broader disputes develop, but it does not settle the underlying allegations. Radiant, Nahar and other defendants still have opportunities to contest the claims, and investigations could take months or longer to produce definitive conclusions.
For Radiant World, however, the immediate problem is clear: access to financing and counterparties is becoming increasingly constrained. With legal actions now spanning Singapore and the UK, investigations underway and major industry participants distancing themselves, the company’s ability to continue operating at its previous scale will depend heavily on whether it can resolve creditor disputes and restore confidence in its trading and financing arrangements.
