Electric Zoo Refunds: What Ticket Holders Need to Know About the Bankruptcy Process

With the Court’s approval of Avant Gardner’s liquidation Plan, Electric Zoo’s refund saga has shifted from litigation into the claims allowance process, placing ticket holders in the same distribution queue as vendors, former employees, and other unsecured creditors. EZoo ticket holders may now find themselves in a longer line for recovery than the one they stood in on the day of the event.

words by Nina K.Malik.

E Zoo / Electric Zoo festival 2023. - photo by Soza.

Following the 17-minute hearing on February 12, where the Court approved the Plan, creditor recoveries are still being negotiated in the liquidating phase ahead of the March 25 omnibus hearing. Administrative fees are climbing, signaling that this is the phase where the case shifts from liability to distribution. In other words, this is when the game enters its “who gets paid” stage.

What followed the widely syndicated 2022 acquisition headlines was refund litigation tied to Electric Zoo 2023. That litigation has now been redirected into the bankruptcy claims allowance process through a proposed Rule 9019 settlement. For ticket holders who waited two years for refunds, the lawsuit has effectively become a general unsecured claim inside the estate.

Under the stipulation filed on February 19, class plaintiffs’ recovery against the Debtors is limited to a general unsecured claim capped at $4 million. This shifts litigation risk away from the estate and into the unsecured creditor pool governed by the Plan waterfall. In practical terms, the class is no longer suing for damages but competing for distribution alongside other unsecured claims.

Eligibility is now restricted to two subclasses:

- Recognized subclasses include Friday, September 1 ticketholders and Sunday, September 3 ticketholders whose tickets were unscanned and not refunded.

- Saturday, September 2 ticket purchasers are expressly excluded from this class definition for the purposes of the allowed claim.

in frame: Nina K. Malik at Ezoo 2023.

This is not the first instance of Electric Zoo proposing a refund plan; a similar initiative was put forward in June 2024. However, the current focus is on the timing of this rollout and the critical question of whether sufficient funds remain after previous claims and expenses have been addressed. As eligible ticket holders await further details, the financial health of the situation will play a significant role in the final outcome of these refund efforts.

Separate from the EZoo refund claims, related adversary litigation involving prepetition financing arrangements continues. Filings in Adv. Proc. 25-51803 reflect disputes between the Debtors and lenders, including TVT Capital Source LLC, regarding contract enforcement and asset disposition. Such litigation may proceed in parallel with Plan implementation depending on whether it's classified as core or non-core.

Court records also reflect formal objections by secured lenders to proposed asset sale structures during the case. These objections address lien priority, settlement approvals, and treatment under the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation. Any negotiations or expressions of interest not reflected on the docket would fall outside the public court record.

Professional fee applications continue to move through the estate. Latest filings show Committee counsel billing $67,730 for the period December 1, 2025, through January 31, 2026, with approximately 46.9 hours allocated to Plan and Disclosure Statement workstreams. Absent objection, interim compensation procedures permit payment of up to 80 percent of approved fees without further hearing.

Distribution under the confirmed Plan generally follows administrative expenses, secured lenders, DIP financing claims, priority claims, and then general unsecured creditors. The $4 million allowed EZoo claim would be treated as a Class 4 general unsecured claim payable through the Liquidating Trust if funds remain after higher-priority tiers. Whether the waterfall ultimately reaches general unsecured creditors depends on recoveries realized by the estate post-liquidation.

Axar Capital Management has also played a central role in the Debtors’ restructuring trajectory. Court filings indicate that an Axar affiliate was designated as the stalking horse bidder in the Debtors’ proposed asset sale process in September 2025 (D.I. 173), following the Bid Procedures Order. This positioned the Axar-affiliated purchaser to acquire certain Mirage-related assets, including accounts receivable and causes of action tied to Adv. Proc. 25-51803, subject to the outcome of disputes regarding whether those receivables were property of the estate.

Deadline for objections to the EZoo stipulation is March 5, 2026. If no objections are filed, the Court may authorize the trustee to compromise or settle controversies within the class or classes without further hearing or notice. This is not the end of the case but rather the beginning of its distribution phase.

related:

Brooklyn Mirage Bankruptcy: When the Trustee Gets Paid First

Sold in the Headlines, Not in Court: Brooklyn Mirage’s Pacha Deal Blows Up in Bankruptcy

Brooklyn Mirage’s Chapter 11: What’s in the Committee’s 14-Point Objection

Pacha New York: What the Press Release Won’t Say Out Loud

Brooklyn Mirage Bankruptcy: $90K 'Services Provided' to Firm in Carone Corruption Probe

SIDEBAR: Electric Zoo and the Receivables Dispute

Electric Zoo’s current refund settlement exists within a complex financial landscape that predates its bankruptcy filing. In June 2022, Avant Gardner, the operator of the Mirage, acquired Made Event–the promoter behind Electric Zoo–from LiveStyle for a reported $15 million. This transaction was spearheaded by a group of investors, including Swiss concert promoter Billy Bildstein and financier Philipp Wiederkehr.

Following this acquisition, merchant cash advance funders–TVT Capital Source LLC, Insta Funding LLC, and Pinnacle Business Funding LLC–asserted in court filings that they collectively provided approximately $11 million in prepetition funding in exchange for a percentage of future receivables linked to venue operations. The MCA Funders argue that these agreements represent “true sales” of receivables rather than loans, claiming they have recovered roughly $3.7 million to date.

However, the Debtors contest this characterization in ongoing adversary litigation (Adv. Proc. 25-51803). Central to the dispute is whether certain accounts receivable should be classified as property of the bankruptcy estate. If portions of those receivables are ultimately deemed not to be estate property, it could significantly impact the asset pool available for distribution to creditors–this includes the proposed $4 million Electric Zoo settlement class.

Compounding the situation, on February 15, 2026, LiveStyle Holdings Inc. transferred its Allowed Class 4 General Unsecured Claim in the AGDP bankruptcy case to Bradford Capital Holdings, LP, in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e)(2). This assigned claim, listed at $9,954,684.44 (Docket No. 467), will now be managed and potentially paid through the Plan waterfall to the transferee rather than to the original promoter entity. The $9,954,684.44 figure reflects the face value of the claim, not the purchase price paid by Bradford Capital, which is not disclosed in the transfer notice and typically remains private in secondary claims market transactions.