Summary

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

Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd and another and another matter [2025] SGHC(I) 3 - 14 February 2025

This is an ex parte application by the claimant, Novo Nordisk A/S ("Novo") for a worldwide freezing order (also known as a worldwide Mareva injunction) against the defendants, KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. ("KBP") and Huang Zhenhua ("Dr Huang"). The application is made pursuant to O 18 r 1 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021, with the injunction to be in Form 31. Novo also seeks ancillary disclosure orders and confidentiality orders. These orders are sought in support of a New York-seated arbitration Novo intends to commence against both defendants for damages of US$830m, of which US$100m is secured by escrow. Novo claims it was misled into believing the defendants had developed a new and effective drug to treat hypertension and kidney disease, Ocedurenone, which it then acquired under an Asset Purchase Agreement dated 11 October 2023 ("APA"). The application is supported by the affidavit evidence of Peter Billeskov Schelde, who is the Corporate Project Vice President of Novo. This was provided under cover of a solicitor's affidavit subject to an undertaking for it to be sworn and filed shortly. Mr Schelde was directly involved in the acquisition.

The arbitration is to be administered by the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") pursuant to the ICC Rules. While reference is also made in the arbitration clause to the ICC's Emergency Arbitrator Rules, recourse to an Emergency Arbitrator thereunder is not available ex parte or without notice. The arbitration clause expressly extends to officers and directors of the parties, and thus includes Dr Huang. Dr Huang executed the APA on KBP's behalf. Novo's position is that Dr Huang is bound by the arbitration agreement.

Under s 12A(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 ("IAA"), read with s 18I of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, this court has the same power to make an order in respect of certain matters for the purpose of and in relation to an arbitration, as the court has for the purpose of and in relation to an action or a matter in the court. This is so regardless of whether the place of arbitration is Singapore. Such power includes making orders for ensuring that any award which may be made in the arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual by the dissipation of assets by a party: s 12(1)(h) of the IAA.

To obtain a worldwide Mareva injunction, the claimant must satisfy the court that (a)...