EL7.AI
StocksMedium•3 November 2026•
4 min read

ZOM Holding Seeks Chapter 11 Protection After $308,552,331.50 Final Judgment

Key Facts

1The final judgment entered on May 12, 2026, was for $308,552,331.50 before interest.
2The debtors estimated their unsecured claims at about $541 million when they filed for bankruptcy.
3The companies expected to seek a proposed 12-week court-supervised bidding and sale process for most assets.
4ZOM filed its opening appeal brief on September 30, 2026, and Gray’s brief is due on December 9, 2026.

ZOM Holding Inc. and three affiliated entities filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, a move ZOM Living said was intended to enable the company to pursue an appeal of a jury judgment exceeding $300 million. The final judgment was entered by the Maricopa County Superior Court on May 12, 2026, for $308,552,331.50 before interest. The filings come amid an ongoing appeal in Arizona, while the debtors intend to continue their day-to-day operations. The company said the filings are not expected to affect operations at ZOM properties. The legal proceeding puts asset reorganization and continued challenges to the judgment at the center of the case, according to a ZOM Living statement and a case summary.

The case stems from a non-circumvention agreement related to four development sites in Arizona. Gray said it shared development plans with ZOM and was then excluded from the process involving those sites, describing the dispute as concerning the joint development of projects worth $1.4 billion. Gray said the process from which it alleged ZOM excluded it involved 13 projects over a decade. On October 3, 2025, a jury found that ZOM Holding Inc. had breached the contract and the duty of good faith, awarding each plaintiff about $148.2 million. The final judgment was subsequently entered in May 2026 for a total of about $308.6 million before interest, according to the case summary. The trial lasted 12 days, after which jurors deliberated for about five hours before reaching a verdict, according to the law firm that represented Gray.

The judgment set damages of $148,224,312 for each of Gray’s two companies, with post-judgment interest accruing at an annual rate of 8.25% on the awarded amounts, according to case details. The debtors estimated their unsecured claims at about $541 million when they filed for bankruptcy. Those claims include the judgment, as well as guarantee and bond-indemnity claims and obligations to vendors. The claims estimate means the reorganization case covers liabilities broader than the judgment alone, while the judgment itself remains under appeal. The case summary does not specify the amount of interest accrued as of the filing date.

The debtors said they were finalizing a stalking-horse agreement to sell most of the assets to ZOM Holding LP or an entity designated by it. They expected to seek court approval for a court-supervised 12-week bidding and sale process, a proposed plan that had not been completed when the petition was filed. The process could allow a higher or better offer than the stalking-horse bid, according to the case summary. ZOM Holding LP is a separate entity from the companies that filed for bankruptcy and agreed to fund the reorganization. It had a secured credit balance of $3.8 million at the time of the filing. The company said ZOM Holding LP “has not filed for bankruptcy” and continues its ordinary business.

ZOM Living says the debtors intend to continue operating the properties day to day and pursue the appeal, distinguishing the proposed reorganization from an announcement that the businesses have completed a liquidation. ZOM Holding had appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals; the appeal was docketed on June 24, 2026, after the Maricopa County Superior Court filed the notice of appeal on May 26. The company filed its opening brief on September 30, 2026, while Gray’s brief is due on December 9, 2026. ZOM’s arguments focus on its claims that Gray did not prove lost profits with reasonable certainty and sought profits from rights it did not own. As an alternative to vacating the judgment, the company is seeking a new trial based on alleged errors.