KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd and another v Novo Nordisk A/S

Procedural record

1. 14 February 2025Singapore

   14 February 2025Singapore

   Judgment of the Singapore International Commercial Court in the case Originating Application No 3 of 2025 and Summons No 11 of 2025 dated 14 February 2025

   Singapore International Commercial Court

   Case no.

   Originating Application No 3 of 2025 and Summons No 11 of 2025

   Citation

   [2025] SGHC(I) 3

   Decision summary

   The court granted a worldwide freezing order and ancillary asset-disclosure orders against KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. and Huang Zhenhua in support of Novo Nordisk A/S's intended New York-seated ICC arbitration. It found a good arguable fraud case and a real risk of asset dissipation, and held that the foreign seat did not make urgent relief inappropriate: the defendants had significant Singapore assets, no tribunal had been constituted, and an ICC emergency arbitrator could not act without notice. The undertakings were revised to permit Cayman Islands proceedings to give effect to or enforce the freezing order. The court made no order on confidentiality and reserved costs.

   Participants

   Application

   Ex parte application for a worldwide freezing order in support of a New York-seated arbitration — Granted, with revised undertakings permitting Cayman Islands implementation or enforcement proceedings

   Application

   Ancillary asset-disclosure orders — Granted

   Application

   Confidentiality orders — No order

   Novo Nordisk A/S

   Representative

   Ong Tun Wei Danny (For: Novo Nordisk A/S)

   Representative

   Teo Jason (For: Novo Nordisk A/S)

   Representative

   Zhang Haowei Elvis (For: Novo Nordisk A/S)

   Representative

   Setia Law LLC (For: Novo Nordisk A/S)

   KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd.

   Huang Zhenhua

   Singapore International Commercial Court

   Judge

   Philip Jeyaretnam

   Other

   Witness

   Peter Billeskov Schelde

   Authorities cited

   7

   • Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (International Arbitration Act 1994)
     statute
   • Singapore Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969)
     statute
   • Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar and another v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal ([2015] 5 SLR 558)
     case
   • Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) ([2003] EWCA Civ 752)
     case
   • Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021, O 18 r 1 and Form 31
     procedural rules
   • ICC Rules of Arbitration
     procedural rules
   • ICC Emergency Arbitrator Rules
     procedural rules

   1 year and 3 months later · 454 days

2. 14 May 2026Singapore

   14 May 2026Singapore

   Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Singapore in the case [2026] SGCA(I) 2 dated 14 May 2026

   Court of Appeal of Singapore

   Decision summary

   The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal to set aside the worldwide freezing order, subject to a minor variation that was not appealed. It held that section 12A of Singapore's International Arbitration Act 1994 empowered the court to grant urgent interim relief in support of the New York-seated arbitration because the arbitral tribunal could not act effectively at the relevant time.

   Participants

   KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd

   Representative

   Mr Cavinder Bull SC (For: KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd · Dr Huang Zhenhua)

   Dr Huang Zhenhua

   Representative

   Mr Cavinder Bull SC (For: KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd · Dr Huang Zhenhua)

   Novo Nordisk A/S

   Representative

   Mr Ong Tun Wei Danny SC (For: Novo Nordisk A/S)

   Court of Appeal of Singapore

   Judge

   Judith Prakash SJ

   Judge

   Lady Arden IJ

   Judge

   Philip Jeyaretnam J

   Authorities cited

   8

   • Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed) (International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed))
     statute
   • Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021
     procedural rules
   • JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd ([2018] 2 SLR 159)
     case
   • Yves Charles Edgar v Accent Delight International Ltd ([2015] 5 SLR 558)
     case
   • Spectramed Pte Ltd v Lek Puay Puay ([2010] SGHC 112)
     case
   • Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah ([2000] 1 SLR(R) 786)
     case
   • Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd ([2000] 2 SLR(R) 926)
     case
   • Re Sprintroom Ltd ([2019] 2 BCLC 617)
     case