• Wide worldwide relief is available to support foreign-seated arbitrations, extending to non-signatories to the arbitration agreement.
• Singapore’s approach is consistent with that of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION

On 12 August 2025, the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) dismissed an application by KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd (“KBP”) and its founder, Dr Huang Zhenhua (“Dr Huang”), to set aside a worldwide freezing order, also known as a Mareva injunction, previously granted against them. The freezing order had been obtained ex parte and without notice to KBP and Dr Huang by Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo”) in support of imminent arbitration proceedings seated in New York under the rules of arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”).

BACKGROUND

The dispute arose out of Novo’s acquisition of rights to the drug Ocedurenone under an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) with KBP dated 11 October 2023. KBP, founded by Dr Huang, presented the drug as a promising treatment for hypertension and kidney disease. Post-closing trials, however, demonstrated the drug’s lack of efficacy. Novo’s further review of trial data revealed anomalies, including interim analyses and compliance issues at a Bulgarian test site that produced suspicious results.

Novo concluded that it had been misled by KBP and Dr Huang’s representations before the closing of the transaction. In February 2025, before commencing arbitration, Novo sought, ex parte and without notice, a worldwide freezing order against KBP and Dr Huang to preserve their assets in Singapore for up to USD 730 million each. Days after Justice Philip Jeyaretnam granted the freezing order in March 2025, Novo commenced ICC arbitration under the APA, seated in New York, and sought damages of USD 830 million.

DECISION

KBP and Dr Huang applied to set aside the order advancing three broad arguments: (i) Novo failed to establish a good and arguable case and a real risk of dissipation; (ii) Novo breached its duty to make full and frank disclosure of material facts in the ex parte proceedings; and (iii) the legal requirements for the court to grant interim relief under section 12A of the Singapore International Arbitration Act (“IAA”) were not satisfied.

Good and Arguable Case, Risk of Dissipation

KBP and Dr Huang argued that Novo lacked a good arguable case and that there was no real risk of dissipation. The court disagreed. It held that Novo had a good arguable case of fraud under New York law, supported by evidence that material adverse data had been withheld and that Dr Huang had knowledge of such information. On dissipation, the court pointed to large transfers of approximately USD 330 million from KBP to Dr Huang made post-closing without clear commercial justification as evidence of dissipative conduct, designed to place assets beyond Novo’s reach.

Full and Frank Disclosure of Material Facts

The applicants further contended that Novo breached its duty of full and frank disclosure in the ex parte application. The court accepted that there were omissions on the part of Novo but found that they were not sufficiently material to justify setting aside the order. Novo’s overall disclosure and supporting evidence provided adequate basis for the relief granted.

Requirements Under Section 12A of the IAA

Under this prong, KBP and Dr Huang claimed that the statutory requirements of (a) the tribunal’s inability to order relief; (b) urgency; and (c) the appropriateness of the Singapore court’s intervention in support of the foreign-seated arbitration were not made out. Justice Philip Jeyaretnam disagreed once again.

• Inability of the ICC tribunal to act. First, at the time of the application, no arbitral tribunal had yet been constituted. Second, an emergency arbitrator would equally be unable to award such relief, as they would be bound by New York law (as the law of the seat) which does not provide for granting Mareva relief ex parte. Finally, any relief would not extend to Dr Huang as a non-signatory to the APA under the ICC Rules on emergency arbitration. The SICC thus considered itself the only forum capable of granting effective interim relief as requested.

• Urgency. Although the applicants emphasised Novo’s short delay in bringing the application, the court found urgency was present, especially given prior asset transfers suggesting dissipation risk. The court underlined that urgency must be assessed in light of the risk of asset dissipation rather than the mere timing of the application.

• Appropriateness. The court noted significant connections with Singapore (chief among them the presence of assets within the jurisdiction). It also found that the arbitration agreement did not preclude recourse to local courts for interim measures and that New York courts did not consider such relief objectionable, even though they could not grant it themselves.

The court finally rejected KBP and Dr Huang’s alterative relief for the variation of the freezing order, but varied a disclosure order ancillary to the freezing order such that the applicants need only disclose assets exceeding USD 10,000 in value.

COMMENT

Worldwide freezing orders are common today, 50 years since the English courts granted the first Mareva injunction in 1975. The remedy remains one of the most powerful tools available to parties facing a real risk of asset dissipation. The SICC’s decision is a reminder of its continuing importance. The judgment also highlights the role of national courts stepping in to support international arbitration, by granting interim relief both against parties and non-parties to the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the decision illustrates the willingness of common law courts to take decisive action in support of an arbitration by ordering the freezing of assets not just in the jurisdiction itself but worldwide—even when the arbitration itself is seated elsewhere.

This publication is for general information purposes only. It is not intended to provide, nor is it to be used as, a substitute for legal advice. In some jurisdictions, it may be considered attorney advertising.