P&A, Gopal win Delhi HC support of Rs 3,500 cr Singapore ICC arbitration for Daiichi Sankyo vs DMD, Salve for Ranbaxy promoters

“The Delhi High Court has allowed Daiichi Sankyo to enforce an international arbitration award here so that it can recover Rs 3,500 crore from former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh, marking a victory for the Japanese company. A Singapore tribunal had said the brothers needed to pay the money for concealing information related to wrongdoing at Ranbaxy, once India’s largest drug maker, when Daiichi acquired it from the brothers for $4.6 billion in 2008,” reported the Economic Times.

P&A Law Offices acted for Daiichi Sankyo, led by managing partner Anand S Pathak, partner Amit Kumar Mishra, principal associate Akshat Hansaria, senior associates Abhijeet Sinha and Mohit Singh and associates Akshay Puri and Samridhi Hota. Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, Arvind Nigam and Arun Kathpalia argued before the court.

DMD Advocates senior partner Anuradha Dutt acted for the Singh brothers, instructing senior advocate Harish Salve.

Before the Singapore ICC tribunal, Daiichi had nominated Karyl Nairn QC as arbitrator, while Malvinder Singh had nominated AM Ahmadi, a former Chief Justice of India; the ICC had appointed Professor Lawrence Boo of The Arbitration Chambers, Singapore as president of the arbitral tribunal, which had handed down its in April 2016.

The enforcement of the award had been appealed later in 2016 in the Delhi high court.

The high court heard the parties over six months and reserved judgment in September 2017. In a 115 page verdict pronounced on 31 January 2018 the court noted:

Based on the evidence on record the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that at the time of due diligence meeting that took place on 26.5.2008 it was beyond reasonable doubt that Mr.Malvinder, Mr. Kaul and Mr.Deshmukh were aware about SAR and believed that it had triggered both the US investigations and that Ranbaxy was very seriously exposed… The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Mr.Malvinder, Mr.Kaul and Mr.Deshmukh acted fraudulently and dishonestly misleading the petitioner/claimant [Daiichi Sankyo] about the genesis, nature and severity of the US Regulatory investigations and deliberately concealed SAR from the claimants [Daiichi Sankyo].

Comments

Congratulations 6 Feb 2018, 11:25
+12 -4
Congratulations Team P&A. A sweet victory finally. All the best for the SC appeal, if any.
Prakash Jha 7 Feb 2018, 04:59
+4 -1
Amit Mishra is a (secret) superstar! Way to go Amit...
Insider 7 Feb 2018, 09:56
+3 -1
Indeed. The last man surviving in P&A.
Cactus 8 Feb 2018, 10:51
+1 -0
Ever wonder what does 'A' stand for in 'P&A'....yeah you guessed it right....The Last Man - because of whom P&A is surviving. You are surely no insider...!!!
Annn 8 Feb 2018, 12:44
+0 -1
A is for Associates.
Whaaat 8 Feb 2018, 15:06
+0 -0
What happened to Nitin Wadhwa and Anil Kumar ?
Not so inside scoop 9 Feb 2018, 04:48
+9 -0
Nithin Wadwa has started his own firm in Gurgaon. Anil Kumar still seems to be there.
Insider 7 Feb 2018, 05:00
+0 -0
Is Abhijeet Sinha back in P&A ?
Annon 7 Feb 2018, 05:53
+0 -0
Seems like.
Insider 7 Feb 2018, 09:56
+0 -0
Strange. I was last told that he joined SAM and then went independent.
Hey 7 Feb 2018, 10:56
+1 -0
However, considering his knowledge,hard work and never give up attitude, he was invited back to spearhead the litigation and anti-trust dispute practice under Amit Mishra. In few years, he will overtake others and lead the practice. All the best Abhijeet.
Guest 7 Feb 2018, 11:46
+1 -0
[img]https://media1.giphy.com/media/l0ExayQDzrI2xOb8A/200.gif[/img]
Annon 7 Feb 2018, 12:57
+1 -0
He was not invited. He quit SAM in less than 2 years to join a Counsel for a few months and then rejoined P&A, but not to 'spearhead' anything. Why he quit (we ll assume he quit) is unknown. And Amit Mishra does not do anti trust dispute. Akshay Nanda does that.
Sock puppetry 7 Feb 2018, 13:06
+0 -0
It's him , him and only him.
Babur 8 Feb 2018, 05:12
+0 -2
While people may keep squabbling....fact remains.....Amit Mishra rules the roost in P&A. Rest are all pocket change and, hence, expendable.
Law2 8 Feb 2018, 10:12
+0 -0
It's Anand Pathak who rules. Thats it. Amit Mishra is a salaried Partner, which makes him pocket change too.
Hey you!! 9 Feb 2018, 06:06
+0 -0
Ghanta!
CID v. Rajnikanth 7 Feb 2018, 11:58
+9 -0
Last time I heard, he was the brain behind Elon Musk's SpaceX.
Then designed a new planet for peaceful habitation of humans after Earth. And was further involved in drafting of constitution and competition law for the same planet.
Moral policing 7 Feb 2018, 13:11
+0 -0
Well you don't have your name up here, kindly refrain from such comments.
True Insider 7 Feb 2018, 14:13
+3 -0
The star man is obviously Akshay Nanda. He is my hero.
Let Down 8 Feb 2018, 07:24
+0 -0
Does anyone know which Indian law firm had advised Daiichi Sankyo when they entered into a purchase agreement with the Ranbaxy promoters?
Annn 8 Feb 2018, 10:14
+1 -0
Does that mean they messed up the due diligence and made hay out of it too?
The Defender 8 Feb 2018, 11:42
+0 -0
Like to know one thing from you the name of Indian law firms which undertake technical diligence such as confirming compliance of pharma products under US FDA requirements.
Annn 8 Feb 2018, 19:06
+0 -0
Indian law firms should not be advising on US law / compliance requirements in the first place.
The Best 8 Feb 2018, 08:57
+0 -0
It was P&A and seems like they defended claims arising from the agreement very well. Imagine 1000 crores in interest and legal costs.
friends 8 Feb 2018, 10:38
+0 -0
When Jones Day and P&A were friends....
Law2 8 Feb 2018, 12:49
+1 -0
Daiichi was the Claimant. The promoters were the Respondents. Get your facts right.
Law Degree 8 Feb 2018, 15:05
+0 -0
And Respondents can never have claims against which a Claimant can defend !!! Buddy get your law degree right.
Insider 8 Feb 2018, 17:56
+0 -0
In this case there was no counter claim to defend.
Sure about that 8 Feb 2018, 20:09
+0 -0
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/daiichi-claim-against-children-of-ex-ranbaxy-promoters-challenged-before-hc-117050500803_1.html
Insider 9 Feb 2018, 05:16
+0 -0
This was a challenge before the High Court, not a counter claim. If you are a lawyer, you should go back to law school. Or better still, quit law altogether and do the society a favour.
Read between the lines 9 Feb 2018, 09:01
+0 -0
So as per your enlightened brains, responding to a challenge is not defending claims arising from the agreement. Understand the difference between counter claim and defending a claim. Do us a favour become a mindless secretary.