SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen, Joel Quek, Alessa Pang and Andre Soh, WongPartnership LLP
The Court’s Protective Powers in aid of Arbitration: Worldwide Freezing Orders Worldwide freezing order in support of foreign- seated arbitration: Novo Nordisk In KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd and another v Novo Nor- disk A / S [2026] SGCA(I) 2, the SGCA considered the scope of the Singapore courts’ power to grant a worldwide freezing order under Section 12A of the IAA in aid of a foreign-seated arbitration. The case arose from Novo Nordisk’s acquisition of the rights to a drug under an asset purchase agreement gov - erned by New York law. Novo Nordisk alleged that it had been induced to complete the acquisition by the fraudulent non-disclosure of material information concerning the drug’s efficacy. A worldwide freezing order had been granted in aid of a New York-seated arbitration. The SGCA dismissed the appeal against the freezing order on all grounds. On the merits, it confirmed that an applicant need only show a “good arguable case”, being one that is more than barely capable of serious argument, though not necessarily one with a better than even chance of success. There is no rule prevent - ing a court from finding a good arguable case of fraud merely because the allegation is contested. The court accepted that there was a good arguable case that the appellants had deliberately withheld objectively mate - rial information about anomalous clinical-trial data, in breach of the disclosure obligations in the asset pur - chase agreement. On the risk of dissipation, the SGCA reaffirmed the principle in JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Hold- ings Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 27 that the test is whether there is a real risk that a judgment may go unsatisfied because of unjustified dealings with assets. The court applied its earlier decision in Bouvier , Yves Charles Edgar and another v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal [2015] SGCA 45, holding that an allegation of dishonesty does not by itself establish a risk of dissipation. The dishonesty must have a real or material bearing on that risk. In Novo Nordisk , the rapid upstreaming of some USD330 million of sale proceeds to the company’s ultimate beneficial owner, without clear contractual justification and against a backdrop of anticipated claims, sup -
The court also addressed the “intra-EU objection”. The court rejected the argument, holding that: • the principle of EU law primacy operates only within the EU legal order and not on the broader international plane; • Article 26 of the ECT is a multilateral obligation that cannot be selectively disapplied; • there was no express “disconnection clause” carv - ing out intra-EU disputes; and • Article 16 of the ECT favours the provision more favourable to investors. Spain’s predicament, the court observed, was ulti - mately “a function of the State entering into the rel - evant treaties” – namely both the ECT and the EU treaties. The intra-EU objection before a non-EU forum: DNZ v DOA The court’s reasoning in NextEra v Spain drew on the SICC’s decision in DNZ v DOA and another [2026] SGHC(I) 1, which concerned a challenge to an ECT award in a non-ICSID, UNCITRAL context. The SICC dismissed the intra-EU objection, holding that the Achmea line of authority applies to bilateral invest - ment treaties rather than multilateral instruments such as the ECT, and that the Komstroy judgment did not retroactively invalidate the arbitration agreement. The SICC also rejected arguments that EU law took precedence over the ECT under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and that enforcing the award would offend Singapore’s public policy. The court held that contravention of EU law does not equate to a vio - lation of Singapore public policy unless it shocks the conscience or violates fundamental notions of moral - ity and justice. Taken together, NextEra v Spain and DNZ v DOA sug - gest that the Singapore courts are inclined to give effect to investment-treaty arbitration agreements and awards notwithstanding an intra-EU objection. It should however be noted that DNZ v DOA is presently under appeal.
853 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook