Opinions and documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KEVIN BARNES, directly on behalf of )
himself and all other similarly situated Class )
A stockholders, ) (Removed from the Court of Chancery of
Plaintiff, ) the State of Delaware, C.A. No. 2025-0273-
v. ) JTL)
)
JASON ADER, JOHN K. LEWIS, RAFAEL )
ASHKENAZI, JOSEPH KAMINKOW, )
GREGORY S. LYSS, J. RANDALL )
WATERFIELD, 26 CAPITAL HOLDINGS )
LLC, RIMU CAPITAL LTD., )
SPRINGOWL ASSET MANAGEMENT )
LLC, ALEXANDER EISEMAN, )
CHRISTIAN LITTLEJOHN ZAMA )
CAPITAL ADVISORS, LT, and ZAMA )
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LP, )
)
Class Action Defendants, )
and )
)
TIGER RESPORT ASIA LTD., TIGER )
RESORT LIESURE AND ) C.A. No. 25-931-MN
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., OKADA )
MANILA INTERNATIONAL, INC., and )
PROJECT TIGER MERGER SUB, INC., )
)
Derivative Defendants, )
and )
)
26 CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP., )
)
Nominal Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 27th day of February 2026,
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2025, plaintiff Kevin Barnes (“the Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
(D.I. 1-1) (“the Complaint”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and other Delaware state law claims on behalf of 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. (“the
Company” or “the Debtor”) and its Class A stockholders. See Barnes v. Ader, C.A. No. 2025-
0273-JTL (Del. Ch.) (“the Barnes Action”);
WHEREAS, the Complaint, which has been provided to this Court in redacted form only,
alleges generally that 26 Capital Holdings LLC (“the Sponsor”), the Company’s controlling
stockholder, breached its fiduciary duties and was not entitled to share in the proceeds of a
settlement, signed on November 9, 2023, of separate litigation1 against various defendants (the
“UEC affiliates”) concerning a failed merger (“the Settlement”);
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2025, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief (Bankr.
D.I. 1)2 under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware (“the Bankruptcy Court”), commencing a case captioned In re 26 Capital
Acquisition Corp., No. 25-11323-KBO (“the Bankruptcy Case”);
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2025, Sponsor removed the Barnes Action from the Chancery
Court, which has overseen other litigation involving the Company and/or the Sponsor, to this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 1452, on the basis that the Barnes Action (1) “expressly seeks
to ‘undo’ the Settlement” and “the return of the settlement proceeds,” which Sponsor asserts are
“the Debtor’s only liquid assets;” and (2) expressly seeks to augment the Debtor’s assets by
alleging that “the invalidity of the Settlement means that 26 Capital maintains its claims against
the UEC affiliates for breaching the Merger Agreement” (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 8-9 (quoting Complaint ¶¶ 11-
12));
1 See 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. et al. v. Tiger Resort Asia Ltd. et al., C.A. No. 2023-
0128-JTL (Del. Ch.)
2 The docket of the bankruptcy case, captioned In re 26 Capital Acquisition Corp., Case No.
25-11323 (KBO) (Bankr. D. Del.), is cited herein as “Bankr. D.I. __.”
WHEREAS 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), which governs removal of claims related to a bankruptcy
case, provides that a party “may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action . . . to the
district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction
of such claim or cause of action under section 1334 of [Title 28];”
WHEREAS 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) confers subject matter jurisdiction to the federal district
courts over “all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title
11”;
WHEREAS removal of the Barnes Action to this Court was not improper, as the claims
asserted in the Barnes Action, which seeks to reverse the Settlement as invalid, would affect
Debtors’ estate and therefore implicates matters “related to” the Bankruptcy Case: whether the
Debtor is entitled to retain these monetary assets, whether the Debtor retains litigation claims
against the UEC Parties, and how the Debtor’s residual assets should be distributed among
creditors;
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Abstention and Remand to
the Delaware Court of Chancery of Count VII of Plaintiff’s Complaint (D.I. 6) (“the Motion for
Abstention and Remand”), which seeks an order abstaining and remanding to the Chancery Court,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(c)(2) and 1452(b), solely Count VII of the Complaint, which alleges
that the Sponsor has no claim against the Company as a matter of state law (Compl. ¶¶ 188–93)
(“Count VII”), and which will require consideration of the internal affairs of the Company, a
Delaware corporation, as well as a determination as to whether the Sponsor has a claim against the
Debtor as a matter of state law;
WHEREAS, the Motion for Abstention and Remand asserts that (1) the Company’s
certificate of incorporation (“the Charter”) requires Plaintiff’s claims to be heard in the Court of
Chancery, that the Sponsor is bound by the Charter and, accordingly, that the Sponsor waived the
right to remove the Barnes Action to this Court; and (2) Plaintiff’s claims meet the requirements
for mandatory abstention and remand under Sections 1334(c)(2) and 1452;
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2025, the United States Trustee filed a motion for conversion
of the Chapter 11 case to a case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D.I. 41) (“the
Motion to Convert”) on the basis of irreconcilable conflicts of interest concerning Jason Ader, as
a defendant in the Barnes Action;
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2025, this Court approved a stipulation extending the deadline
for Sponsor and the Company to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Abstention and Remand through
“seven (7) days following the entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court resolving the [Motion to
Convert]” (D.I. 7);
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order granting the
Motion to Convert and converting the Company’s Chapter 11 case to a case under Chapter 7
(Bankr. D.I. 108) (“the Conversion Order”), and, on December 13, 2025, Jami B. Nimeroff was
appointed as Interim Chapter 7 Trustee (Bankr. D.I. 110);
WHEREAS, the docket reflects that no party opposed or otherwise responded to the
Motion for Abstention and Remand by December 19, 2025 or has since filed any opposition or
response;
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2025, Mr. Ader filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy (D.I. 9),
indicating that, on December 22, 2025, “Jason Adar [sic] commenced a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 25-
25088 (CLC)” (“the Ader Bankruptcy”);
WHEREAS, the weight of authority permits a case to be remanded despite the automatic
stay;? and
WHEREAS, although the Motion for Abstention and Remand is unopposed, and although
Plaintiff presents strong arguments supporting abstention and remand with respect to Count VII of
the Complaint, “[c]onsistent with the weight of authority in our Circuit, we instead transfer this
matter to [the Bankruptcy Court] for [a] decision on abstention”;*
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. In accordance with this Court’s Amended Standing Order of Reference, dated
February 29, 2012, which provides that “any or all cases under Title 11 and any or all proceedings
arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11 are referred to the bankruptcy
judges for this district,” this action is referred to the Bankruptcy Court in its entirety, including
Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Abstention and Remand to the Delaware Court of Chancery of
Count VII of Plaintiff's Complaint (D.I. 6), to be assigned to the Honorable Karen B. Owens, Chief
United States Bankruptcy Judge, in connection with the Bankruptcy Case captioned Jn re 26
Capital Acquisition Corp., No. 25-11323-KBO.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE C.A. No. 25-931-MN
Ma Ll Noracko
The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
United States District Judge
3 See Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs Loc. 542 v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., No. CV 21-114,
2021 WL 915722, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2021) (canvassing cases).
4 See Int'l Union of Operating Eng’rs Loc. 542, 2021 WL 915722, at *4.
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.