Friven Yeoh

Mr. Yeoh has handled arbitrations conducted under various institutional and ad hoc rules, including those of the ICC, HKIAC, CIETAC, SIAC, JCAA, LCIA, SCC, UNCITRAL and CAS. He also frequently serves as tribunal chair or co-arbitrator in matters before major arbitral institutions. In addition, Mr. Yeoh advises clients in commercial litigation and regulatory investigations involving product risk and liability, energy, corporate affairs, competition and financial services matters, as well as life sciences.

In recognition of his work, Mr. Yeoh is ranked as a leading lawyer in numerous legal publications, including:

• Chambers Global 2024 and Chambers Greater China Region 2024, in Band 1 for Dispute Resolution: Arbitration. He is described as “sharp as a tack yet gentle, one of the most experienced arbitration practitioners who can provide first-class legal aid to clients”
• The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2024, in which he is described as “highly efficient, very thorough” and an “effective tactician” who “exhibits high levels of professionalism and diligence.” In addition, Mr. Yeoh is recognized in The Legal 500 Arbitration Powerlist
• Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific 2024 as a Litigation Star for International Arbitration
• Lexology Index (formerly Who’s Who Legal) as a Thought Leader in Arbitration 2024 (Global and National guides) and a Recommended Leader in Commercial Litigation 2024

Mr. Yeoh writes and speaks frequently on developments in international arbitration in Asia. His significant representations include advising:*

• a private equity fund in a US$500 million HKIAC arbitration against a major Hong Kong-listed transport infrastructure company in relation to the repudiation of a share subscription agreement
• a Hong Kong-based hedge fund in a dispute against a major institutional investor, including in a consolidated UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the HKIAC in Hong Kong and governed by Jersey law. In the arbitration, the institutional investor sought (among other things) findings that the hedge fund should be wound up on a just and equitable basis under Jersey law
• a well-known Chinese real estate developer and its affiliates in a US$160 million HKIAC arbitration brought by a U.S.-based investment management firm in connection with its intended exit from a joint venture. In parallel, the parties also submitted related disputes under onshore joint venture contracts to CIETAC arbitration in Beijing
• a major PRC-based conglomerate and listed company in a US$110 million HKIAC arbitration against a U.S.-based commodities trading company in connection with disputes arising from an investment agreement
• a PRC-listed company in a US$100 million Hong Kong arbitration conducted under the HKIAC rules arising from a joint venture dispute in connection with the setup and management of a luxury department store in Beijing
• two Hong Kong private equity investors in a US$50 million HKIAC arbitration in connection with a joint venture acquisition of assets previously belonging to a major Chinese distressed-debt management conglomerate
• a multinational life sciences company in a multimillion-dollar Singapore-seated SIAC arbitration against a pharmaceutical group based in Southeast Asia. The dispute arose out of the pharmaceutical group’s breaches of various representations and warranties in connection with its sale of a portfolio of generic drugs (including marketing authorizations, customer lists and goodwill) to the client
• a PRC-based pharmaceutical group in a US$50 million LCIA arbitration against a European specialty pharmaceutical company in connection with a medical distribution agreement governed by English law
• a global biotech company in a US$340 million New York-seated ICC arbitration governed by New York law against its U.S. clinical research partner. The dispute centered around alleged breaches of two license and collaboration agreements for joint clinical research and development of new immunotherapy treatments for cancer
• a multinational consulting firm in an ICC arbitration seated in Zurich involving a multimillion-dollar claim against a leading European conglomerate in connection with the design and construction of a high-speed rail link in China
• a major European energy company in an US$80 million claim against a significant Chinese state-owned company in an ad hoc arbitration in Singapore in respect of breaches under a share transfer arrangement
• a multinational energy company in a US$500 million claim in a Stockholm arbitration conducted under SCC rules arising from the breach of a petroleum exploration and production contract
• a U.S. leisure goods conglomerate in its defense against allegations of breach of a worldwide exclusive distribution agreement in an SIAC arbitration
• a high-net-worth individual before the Hong Kong High Court to defend claims for knowing receipt and knowing assistance pursued by liquidators of a listed company in connection with alleged fraud perpetrated by the former directors of the company
• an individual in a Hong Kong Takeovers and Mergers Panel proceeding concerning violation of the Hong Kong Takeovers Code by a Chinese e-commerce group in connection with the grant of a “whitewash waiver” by the Securities and Futures Commission for the acquisition of an online drug platform, of which the individual is a shareholder
• a global private equity fund in a third-party intervention application before the Hong Kong High Court to amend/discharge an interim injunction in support of an arbitration commenced by a Chinese investor against the founder in respect of ownership of the fund, whose portfolio companies were valued at over US$800 million. The application before the Hong Kong High Court was one of several contentious proceedings between the parties across multiple jurisdictions

*Includes matters worked on prior to joining Skadden