\..,.,‘
`
`&
`
`: v;f_ "N THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE \ Lll“\
`
`o \l‘n\ > g
`
`S
`
`-‘
`
`P COL Iy EFile A!)I[in'f"'l
`{7 'é: 1) GRANTED WITH MODI.EJGMI%mflgsm G 1)
`f 1§ el | Case No. 2025-1136-MTZ v »‘;!
`[ fi"’z sf s
`
`PERCEPTIVE ADVISORS, LLC,
`PERCEPTIVE CREDIT
`OPPORTUNITIES FUND 1V, LP,
`ELLEN HUKKELHOVEN, KBI
`SERVICES, INC., KINDBODY, INC.,
`TARA COMONTE, RIVKA
`FRIEDMAN, KATHY HARRIS,
`LINDA MINTZ, and THERESA
`SEXTON,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`V. C.A. No. 2025-1136-MTZ
`
`GINA BARTASI,
`
`Defendant.
`
`GINA BARTASI,
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff and
`Third-Party Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`PERCEPTIVE ADVISORS, LLC,
`PERCEPTIVE CREDIT
`OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV, LP,
`ELLEN HUKKELHOVEN, KBI
`SERVICES, INC., KINDBODY, INC.,
`TARA COMONTE, RIVKA
`FRIEDMAN, KATHY HARRIS,
`LINDA MINTZ, and THERESA
`SEXTON,
`
`Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`ADAM STONE,
`
`N N N N N
`
`Third-Party Defendant.
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]| ORDER GOVERNING
`SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
`FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION
`
`WHEREAS, on October 6, 2025, Plaintiffs Perceptive Advisors, LLC,
`Perceptive Credit Opportunities Fund IV, LP, and Ellen Hukkelhoven (the
`“Perceptive Plaintiffs”) filed their Verified Complaint (the “Complaint”), Motion to
`Expedite (the “Motion to Expedite” or “MTE”), and Motion for a Preliminary Anti-
`Suit Injunction (the “PI Motion”) in the above-captioned action (the “Action”) (see
`D.I. 1);
`
`WHEREAS, on October 14, 2025, the Court granted the Motion to Intervene
`filed by KBI Services, Inc., Kindbody, Inc., Tara Comonte, Rivka Friedman, Kathy
`Harris, Linda Mintz, and Theresa Sexton (the ““ Kindbody Plaintiffs,” together with
`the Perceptive Plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs”) (D.1. 22);
`
`WHEREAS, on October 14 and October 16, 2025, the Kindbody Plaintiffs
`joined the Motion to Expedite (D.I. 24) and the PI Motion (D.I. 37), respectively;
`
`WHEREAS, on October 22, 2025, the Court granted the Motion to Expedite
`
`(D.L 53);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, on October 29, 2025, the Court granted the PI Motion, enjoining
`Bartasi from litigating the New York Action' (D.I. 72, the “Anti-Suit Injunction
`Order”);
`
`WHEREAS, on November 10, 2025, the parties filed a letter to the Court
`enclosing competing schedules governing further proceedings in the Action, which
`attached Plaintiffs’ Proposed Schedule as Exhibit A (D.I. 78, the “November 10
`Letter”);
`
`WHEREAS, on November 21, 2025, the Court ordered Bartasi to “file any
`counterclaims by November 26, [] file a motion to expedite if she seeks expedited
`treatment of those counterclaims [and] show cause as to why discovery should not
`be stayed pending a motion to dismiss, following well-worn Delaware law.” (D.I.
`80);
`
`WHEREAS, on November 26, 2025, Bartasi filed an answer and
`counterclaims, which purported, among other things, to assert counterclaims against
`all Plaintiffs and against third-party Adam Stone (the “Third-Party Defendant”) (D.I.
`82);
`
`WHEREAS, on November 26, 2025, Bartasi also filed a letter to the Court
`
`regarding the case schedule (D.I. 83, the “Bartasi Letter”);
`
`! Undefined capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed to them in the Complaint.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, on December 10, 2025, the Court determined that the Bartasi
`Letter “show[ed] no basis to expedite her counterclaims, nor any of the accepted
`reasons [not] to stay discovery on them pending a motion to dismiss.” (Dkt. 87, the
`“December 10 Minute Order”);
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendant have moved to dismiss
`Bartasi’s counterclaims, and Plaintiffs have informed Bartasi that they intend to
`move for summary judgment on their affirmative claims (together with the motions
`to dismiss, the “Dispositive Motions™) to seek (a) an order permanently enjoining
`Bartasi from litigating the New York Action and (b) legal fees and costs associated
`with litigating in the wrong forum since October 1, 2025, and enforcing the forum
`selection clauses;
`
`WHEREAS, the December 10 Minute Order directs the parties to resubmit
`“[a] schedule tracking the plaintiffs[’], at Exhibit A to the November 10 [L]etter”
`but that Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule should be “adjusted for the passage of time”;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agreed, subject to the approval of
`the Court, on the following schedule, which tracks Ex. A to the November 10 Letter
`but is adjusted for the passage of time;
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that:
`
`1. The following schedule shall govern further proceedings in the Action:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`Deadline for Plaintiffs to file one-page
`Motions for Summary Judgment.
`
`January 2, 2026
`
`(b)
`
`Deadline for Plaintiffs and Third-Party
`Defendant to file their opening briefs in
`support of their Dispositive Motions (not
`to exceed 14,000 words each).
`
`January 30, 2026
`
`Deadline for Defendant Bartasi to file
`answering briefs in opposition to the
`
`Dispositive Motions (not to exceed
`14,000 words each).
`
`March 30, 2026
`
`(d)
`
`Deadline for Plaintiffs and Third-Party
`Defendant to file reply briefs in further
`support of their Dispositive Motions (not
`to exceed 8,000 words each).
`
`April 30, 2026
`
`(e)
`
`Oral argument on the Dispositive
`Motions.
`
`[Parties to contact chambers
`after Defendant files the
`answering brief]
`
`Discovery on Bartasi’s counterclaims is stayed pending resolution of
`
`Plaintiffs’ and Third-Party Defendant’s motions to dismiss.
`
`As soon as practicable after the Court’s ruling on the Dispositive
`
`Motions, the parties shall confer regarding a schedule for further proceedings in the
`
`Action, if any, and submit a proposed schedule governing any such proceedings. If
`
`the parties cannot agree on a proposed schedule for any further proceedings, they
`
`shall submit a joint letter enclosing competing forms of scheduling order.
`
`The parties may amend the deadlines set forth in this order without
`
`approval of the Court, for good cause shown.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David Elsberg*
`
`Jared Ruocco*
`
`Molly O’Keefe*
`
`Silas La Borde*
`
`Daria Balaeskoul*
`
`ELSBERG BAKER & MARURI PLLC
`1 Penn Plaza
`
`New York, NY 10119
`
`(212) 597-2600
`
`* Admitted pro hac vice
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`M. Todd Scott
`
`Alexander K. Talarides
`
`ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`The Orrick Building
`
`405 Howard Street
`
`San Francisco, California 94105
`
`William J. Foley
`
`ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`
`New York, New York 10019
`
`/s/ Peter C. Cirka
`
`A. Thompson Bayliss (#4379)
`Peter C. Cirka (#6979)
`
`Caleb H. Theriot (#7343)
`ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
`
`20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
`Wilmington, Delaware 19807
`(302) 778-1000
`bayliss@abramsbayliss.com
`cirka@abramsbayliss.com
`theriot@abramsbayliss.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Perceptive
`Advisors, LLC, Perceptive Credit
`Opportunity Fund, 1V, LP, Ellen
`Hukkelhoven, and Third-Party
`Defendant Adam Stone
`
`/s/ R. Garrett Rice
`
`David E. Ross (Bar. No. 5228)
`
`R. Garrett Rice (Bar No. 6242)
`
`ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`Hercules Building
`
`1313 North Market Street, Suite 1001
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`(302) 576-1600
`
`dross@ramllp.com
`grice@ramllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kindbody,
`Inc., KBI Services, Inc., Tara
`Comonte, Rivka Friedman, Kathy
`Harris, Linda Mintz, and Theresa
`Sexton
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`Daniel J. Kaiser (admitted pro hac vice)
`KAISER, SAURBORN & MAIR
`
`30 Broad Street, 37th Floor
`
`New York, NY 10004
`
`(212) 338-9100
`
`James C. Woolery (admitted pro hac
`vice)
`
`WOOLERY & CO.
`
`200 E. 21st Street
`
`New York, NY 10011
`
`(212) 287-7377
`
`Dated: December 31, 2025
`
`SO ORDERED this day of
`
`CHRISTENSEN LAW LLC
`
`/s/ Joseph L. Christensen
`
`Joseph L. Christensen (#5146)
`
`Anne M. Steadman (#6221)
`
`Levi Akkerman (#7015)
`
`1201 North Market Street, Suite 1404
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-212-4330
`joe@christensenlawde.com
`asteadman(@christensenlawde.com
`lakkerman(@christensenlawde.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Gina Bartasi
`
`,202 .
`
`Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This document constitutes a ruling of the court and should be treated as such.
`
`Court:
`Judge:
`
`File & Serve
`Transaction ID:
`
`Current Date:
`Case Number:
`Case Name:
`
`Court Authorizer:
`
`DE Court of Chancery Civil Action
`
`Morgan Zurn
`
`77971333
`
`Jan 02, 2026
`
`2025-1136-MTZ
`
`CONF/ Perceptive Advisors, LLC, et al. v. Gina Bartasi
`
`Morgan Zurn
`
`Court Authorizer
`Comments:
`
`If multiple case-dispositive motions are filed, counsel is respectfully asked to consolidate briefing as much as
`
`possible.
`
`4. Once a hearing date has been confirmed, the court asks that counsel kindly confirm with Chambers on
`changing the date of any reply briefing.
`
`/s/ Judge Morgan Zurn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`