US law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel has filed a lawsuit against 26 Capital Acquisition Corp for failing to pay their legal fees related to the failed merger of Okada, the biggest casino in the Philippines.

Schulte Roth & Zabel has taken the case to Delaware’s Court of Chancery to prevent 26 Capital, a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC), from dissolving without taking care of its legal obligations. The law firm provided legal advice to 26 Capital regarding their planned $2.5 billion merger with Okada Manila, which is affiliated with Japan’s Universal Entertainment (6425.T).

The dispute between the law firm and its former client, 26 Capital Acquisition Corp, involves unpaid legal fees amounting to over $1.9 million. This issue arose after 26 Capital’s unsuccessful attempt to merge with the Philippines’ largest casino, a major setback for the company.

A Delaware chancery judge recently refused to compel Okada Manila to proceed with the merger, citing flaws in the disclosed information. In addition, the judge criticized the behavior of 26 Capital, stating that the company engaged in conduct that should not be rewarded by forcing the completion of the merger.

Move over, traditional Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), because SPACs are stealing the spotlight. These blank-check companies have become the talk of the town with their unique approach to raising capital. Unlike IPOs, SPACs don’t have a specific business plan right off the bat. Instead, they aim to acquire existing businesses, allowing them to go public faster than ever before.

But as the recent legal dispute between Schulte Roth & Zabel and 26 Capital has shown us, the world of SPACs is not without its complications. Schulte Roth & Zabel is fighting for its right to substantial legal fees incurred while working on behalf of 26 Capital. The law firm argues that creditors should be compensated before investors can redeem their shares. This highlights the importance of adhering to legal obligations in SPAC transactions.

While SPACs offer companies a quicker path to going public, there are risks involved. The lack of a predefined business plan can lead to unforeseen obstacles, as seen in the 26 Capital case. On the other hand, IPOs follow a more structured and regulated approach, ensuring that investors have thorough information about the company’s financial health and potential risks.

As SPACs continue to make waves in the finance world, it becomes clear that clear guidelines and oversight are needed to protect the interests of all parties involved. The ongoing debate over whether SPACs will maintain their popularity or face increased regulation is testament to the complexity of this emerging trend.

In a major setback, the merger deal between Tiger Resort Leisure and Entertainment Inc (operator of Okada Manila) and SPAC 26 Capital Acquisition Corp has been terminated. The initially valued $2.6 billion merger aimed to make Okada Manila public on NASDAQ. However, conflicts between Universal Entertainment Group and 26 Capital, led by gambling investor Jason Ader, caused significant delays in late 2022. The legal battle stemmed from the ousting of founder Kazuo Okada in 2017, resulting in charges of financial mismanagement. These legal issues have had a lasting impact on Okada Manila’s pursuit of funds, new customers, and lenders.

May brought escalating tension as Okada’s partners took control of the casino. Universal Entertainment Corporation filed a lawsuit against Jason Ader and 26 Capital, accusing them of fraud and violating the Investment Advisers Act. These alleged breaches include unauthorized disclosures and violations of securities laws. The termination of the merger and ensuing legal battle center around Jason Ader’s alleged misconduct, which raises doubts about the deal’s success.

Leave a Reply

Interested in our Domains?

    Interested in our Solutions?