Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor

[2025] SGHC(I) 22 Singapore International Commercial Court 12 August 2025 • SIC/OA 3/2025 ( SIC/SUM 21/2025 ) • 53 min read

9 cases cited (6 SG, 3 foreign)

Catchwords

Injunctions — Mareva injunction — Setting aside Arbitration — Injunction — Court’s powers under section 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Injunctions Arbitration

Judges (1)

Philip Jeyaretnam Delivered

Counsel (11)

Drew & Napier LLC Firm Setia Law LLC Firm Belle Tan Ling Yi Counsel Defendant Cavinder Bull Counsel Defendant Gerald Paul Seah Yong Sing Counsel Defendant Lee Jin Loong Counsel Claimant Ong Tun Wei Danny Counsel Claimant Tan Jui Yang Benedict Counsel Defendant Tan Yuan Kheng (Chen Yuanqing) Counsel Defendant Teo Jason Counsel Claimant Zhang Haowei Elvis Counsel Claimant

Parties (3)

KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. Defendant Novo Nordisk A/S Claimant Huang Zhenhua Defendant

Summary

Novo Nordisk obtained an ex parte worldwide freezing order up to US$730 million against KBP Biosciences and its founder Dr Huang in support of a New York-seated arbitration alleging fraud in KBP's sale of the drug Ocedurenone. The defendants applied to set aside the freezing order. The SICC dismissed the setting aside application, finding a good arguable case of fraud and a real risk of dissipation, but varied the ancillary disclosure order to exclude assets worth less than US$10,000.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10)

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A)

s 12A

Cases Cited (9)

SG (2)

[2025] SGHC 154 [2025] SGHC 34

SLR (4)

[2015] 5 SLR 558 [2018] 2 SLR 159 [2023] 1 SLR 1072 [2025] 3 SLR 1511

UK (3)

[2006] 1 WLR 3555 [2016] EWHC 2327 [2020] Ch 783

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC(I) 22)