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

[2025] SGHC(I) 3 Singapore International Commercial Court 14 February 2025 • SIC/OA 3/2025 ( SIC/SUM 11/2025 ) • 7 min read
2 cases cited (1 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions — Claimant making ex parte application for worldwide Mareva injunction in support of New York-seated arbitration –– Whether appropriate to grant worldwide Mareva injunction – Section 12A International Arbitration Act 1994

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Philip Jeyaretnam Delivered

Counsel (4)

Setia Law LLC Firm Ong Tun Wei Danny Counsel Claimant Teo Jason Counsel Claimant Zhang Haowei Elvis Counsel Claimant

Parties (3)

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

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC(I) 3 is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision dated 14 February 2025 concerning Civil Procedure, specifically addressing mareva injunctions. The judgment was delivered by Philip Jeyaretnam. The case was brought by Novo Nordisk A/S (claimant) against KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Setia Law LLC. The judgment cites 2 cases (1 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 3 statutory provisions, including the Arbitration Act, the International Arbitration Act, and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Summary

Novo Nordisk obtained an ex parte worldwide freezing order against KBP Biosciences and its founder Dr Huang Zhenhua in support of a planned New York-seated ICC arbitration claiming US$830 million in damages for alleged fraud in the acquisition of the drug Ocedurenone. The SICC granted the injunction under s 12A of the International Arbitration Act, finding a good arguable case of fraud, a real risk of dissipation, and that no arbitral tribunal had yet been constituted to address the matter.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC(I) 3?

[2025] SGHC(I) 3 (Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 14 February 2025 addressing Civil Procedure, specifically mareva injunctions. The judgment was delivered by Philip Jeyaretnam.

Who were the parties in Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor?

The claimant in [2025] SGHC(I) 3 was Novo Nordisk A/S, and the defendant was KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd., Huang Zhenhua. Legal representation included Setia Law LLC. The case was decided on 14 February 2025 in the Singapore International Commercial Court.

Which judge decided [2025] SGHC(I) 3?

[2025] SGHC(I) 3 was delivered by Philip Jeyaretnam in the Singapore International Commercial Court on 14 February 2025. The case concerned Civil Procedure.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC(I) 3 cite?

[2025] SGHC(I) 3 cites 2 prior decisions, including 1 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Arbitration Act, International Arbitration Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10)
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A)
s 12A(2)
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)
s 18I

Cases Cited (2)

SLR (1)
[2015] 5 SLR 558
UK (1)
[2003] EWCA Civ 752

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC(I) 3)