A high-stakes commercial dispute between a U.S. supplier and a Malaysian glove exporter is now centered on a key legal question: should their $500 million fight be decided in court, or behind closed doors in arbitration?
London Luxury LLC has asked a federal judge in New York to compel arbitration in a lawsuit brought by Malaysia-based MNA Gloves SDN BHD. The case stems from a massive pandemic-era agreement to supply nitrile gloves for resale to Walmart.
In a recent court filing, London Luxury argued that MNA is bound by an arbitration clause in the parties’ contract and cannot sidestep it simply because it now disputes parts of the agreement. According to the company, MNA’s fraud and breach-of-contract allegations fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration provision.
MNA, however, contends that the dispute fits within an exception to the arbitration clause tied to intellectual property rights. The contract carved out certain IP-related claims, but London Luxury maintains that the exception applies only to intellectual property belonging to London Luxury or its customers — not to third parties.
At the center of the disagreement is a supply deal signed in April 2021, at the height of global demand for medical protective equipment. Under the original arrangement, MNA agreed to store, repackage and export roughly 2 million boxes of nitrile gloves per month for a year. The gloves were to be sold under London Luxury’s “Dr. Smart” branding and ultimately supplied to Walmart.
The contract was reportedly valued at nearly $497 million.
But problems soon emerged. According to MNA’s complaint, London Luxury struggled to secure sufficient quantities of gloves, which were manufactured and patented by Ansell Ltd. MNA claims it later discovered that London Luxury did not hold the necessary intellectual property rights or licenses to repackage and resell those gloves.
MNA further alleges that London Luxury failed to issue purchase orders for months and later persuaded the Malaysian company to amend the agreement under false pretenses. An August 2021 amendment reduced the contract’s value to approximately $54.6 million and significantly lowered the monthly volume.
The amended complaint accuses London Luxury of fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. MNA also claims that London Luxury improperly terminated the agreement in January 2022, citing inspection and certification deficiencies that MNA says were merely pretexts to avoid payment for an initial shipment.
London Luxury disputes those claims and argues that MNA cannot selectively enforce parts of the contract while ignoring the arbitration clause. In its filing, the company characterized MNA’s position as an attempt to avoid a forum it previously agreed to.
The dispute in New York is not the only litigation tied to the failed glove venture.
London Luxury previously sued Walmart Inc. in Arkansas federal court, alleging that the retailer had committed to purchasing at least 60 million boxes of gloves. Walmart denied making any minimum purchase commitment and argued that it retained the right to cancel before individual orders shipped.
That case went to trial, and in 2024 a jury awarded London Luxury roughly $101 million in damages. The jury also granted Walmart $350,000 on counterclaims after finding that a former Walmart sales director had breached fiduciary duties with assistance from London Luxury.
Now, the focus shifts back to New York, where the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York must decide whether MNA’s claims proceed before a judge or an arbitrator.
The outcome could determine not only where the $500 million dispute is resolved, but also how much of the case will unfold in public view.
