LCIA arbitration; enforcement in S.D.N.Y. · US (NY) · 2022-23 · Settled 2023
Citation/Docket: LCIA Case No. 225609; Glaz LLC v. Sysco, 1:23-cv-02489 (S.D.N.Y.)
Posture: Funder vehicles vs. funded claimant (Sysco)
Funder(s) involved: Burford Capital (Glaz, Posen, Kenosha vehicles)
Burford invested $140M+ in Sysco's protein price-fixing antitrust claims under a Capital Provision Agreement. When Sysco moved to settle at levels Burford deemed too low, Burford commenced LCIA arbitration and obtained an order barring Sysco from settling; enforcement litigation followed in federal court. Sysco retained Maya Steinitz, the litigation finance scholar cited throughout this Institute's Research Library and Foundational Scholarship page, as its expert witness. Her report argued that a funder consent right this broad over settlement was an outlier against ordinary market practice, in which funders describe themselves as passive capital providers, and directly informed Sysco's public-policy argument to vacate the arbitration award.
Resolved by settlement: Sysco assigned its antitrust claims to Burford SPV Carina Ventures LLC, and the arbitration was dismissed by stipulation in June 2023.
'Passive capital' language can coexist with powerful settlement-consent covenants. Every CPA should state with precision when, whether, and how a funder may block or compel settlement, and what dispute mechanism governs.
Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.
Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.