Broad Street Global Fund: SEC Alleges $1 Billion Offering Fraud, Monitor Named April 21, 2025

What this page rests on, and what we could not read

We read four primary documents: the SEC's complaint (filed January 29, 2025 and unsealed July 25, 2025), the court's April 21, 2025 order appointing a monitor, and SEC Litigation Releases 26289 (April 21, 2025) and 26366 (August 4, 2025), plus the court's July 25, 2025 electronic notice. Every figure below is from those documents.

We did not verify a second, private lawsuit. Trade press reported in October 2026 that a group of investors had sued in the Southern District of Florida under No. 1:26-cv-27140, asking for a receiver, an asset freeze and dissolution of the fund. We tried to pull that docket from free sources and could not open it, and we did not buy it from PACER. So none of its figures, fee percentages or later events (including any redemption dispute) appear on this page. We also did not read any monitor report, because the court filings after July 25, 2025 are not in the documents we saved. Where the SEC's papers and the press differ, we use only the SEC's papers.

This page names companies, the court and case numbers. It does not name the individual defendants, the monitor or any investor; the complaint and releases do.

The timeline in the papers

One flag is worth knowing. The July 25, 2025 docket notice carries a banner reading “CASE CLOSED on 06/25/2025,” yet the same notice sets briefing into November 2025. We do not know what the banner reflects, and we did not read later docket entries. Do not treat the case as ended on that evidence.

How the fund was built: 11 series, one pool of cash

The complaint says the fund sold units in separate “Series,” each with its own strategy and promised return. These are the series it names, with what the manager had raised at the date the complaint gives (September or November 2023).

The eleven lines add to about $451.8 million (our arithmetic: 168 + 87 + 53.5 + 41.8 + 31.2 + 24.2 + 19.4 + 16.6 + 6.2 + 2 + 1.9). That is well under half of the more than $1 billion the complaint says was deposited. The complaint says these are series “including” others and gives different dates, and it does not reconcile the two totals, so we cannot say how much of the gap is later raising (it says about $500 million came in during 2024), series it does not list, or something else.

The structure matters to a holder. The October 2020 private placement memorandum, as the complaint quotes it, said the fund “is divided into separate [S]eries operated in a manner so as to avoid cross-liability between the Series.” The SEC alleges the opposite happened: cash from many series sat in the same manager-controlled accounts, and obligations were created across series. If that allegation is right, a unit in one series is not a clean claim on that series' assets. That is a reason to ask for series-level statements, not a conclusion about any one series.

The inflated-returns allegation, in numbers

The SEC's first theory is that returns were paid that profits did not support. It focuses on two series.

Two readings of the arithmetic, both ours. First, the $42.9 million equals the $18.6 million plus the $24.3 million. Of it, $25.3 million was cash ($9.2 million plus $16.1 million) and $17.6 million was “reinvested,” meaning it raised the investor's account balance without cash leaving. About 41% of the reported returns were paper credits, which still count as a claim the fund owes. Second, the SEC's ceiling on lifetime MCA profit is $20 million, against more than $43 million paid to the two series (paragraph 145); the paid amount is more than twice that ceiling.

The complaint also says investor account statements showed a fixed return such as 14% times the balance, “not based on actual profits,” and that a late-2022 internal stress test showed MCA returns would not cover all investor obligations. It says the unaudited fiscal 2023 statements told investors the MCA portfolios had historically generated 2.87% average monthly returns. Those are the SEC's allegations about documents; we did not see the documents.

Where the money went, as alleged

Our arithmetic: $170 million is about 19% of the $880 million that reached the management company, and about 17% of the more than $1 billion deposited. The complaint's per-person subtotals (paragraphs 99 to 105) overlap with the entity lines above, so we do not add them. The two relief defendants are companies the SEC names as recipients of money it alleges came from the fraud.

The “tax-free” series

The qualified small business stock series was created in June 2021 and promised an 18% annualized return, “a total return of 90%” after five years, with “the entire exit qualifying as a QSBS transaction and hereby tax free.” The pitch deck itself said the company would have to “use 80% of its assets in the active conduct of one or more” qualified businesses throughout the holding period. The SEC alleges the series' money was never provided to the company named in the deck or to any entity that would invest it that way, that the company's bank account shows virtually no activity, and that the deck's tax-free claim was false when made. For how the real rule works, see our page on Section 1202 limits by acquisition date. A holder of this series may have a tax-reporting question that is separate from the fraud case.

What the monitor order does, and does not do

The April 21, 2025 order resolved the SEC's asset-freeze and receiver motions, “and only those motions,” and lets the SEC renew them. In plain terms:

• Books. The monitor can review the books of the management company, Broad Street Inc., the fund, its holding company, the Series CM vehicle and the two relief defendants, including records of which series owns which assets.
• Reports. The monitor files a report within 14 days and then within 30 days after each calendar quarter, and all stipulations and reports go on the public docket (with redactions for commercially sensitive information). The order says “All BSG Fund investors shall be made aware of this Order.”
• No new money. The defendants “shall not solicit any potential or actual investors and shall not accept any additional investments” until the monitor and parties ask the court for relief; the earliest they could move to lift this is 90 days after the order, and only with the monitor's approval.
• Assets stay put. Defendants may not move assets outside the court's jurisdiction or transfer fund assets to personal accounts or to the relief defendants.
• Fixing the structure. Defendants must move assets bought with fund money into entities owned by the right series, hire an independent auditor and have each series accounted for separately.
• Who pays. “No BSG Fund assets or investor monies may be used to pay such fees and expenses” of the monitor.

What it is not: a receivership. A monitor reports to the court and recommends; defendants then have 30 days to cure. A receiver would take control of the assets. The order says nothing, in the pages we read, about redemptions, distributions to investors or a claims process.

What is not known

• Your series' value. The papers describe series-level raising, not current balances or what any series still holds.
• Redemptions and distributions. The monitor order does not address them. Press reports in 2026 describe a dispute about how redemptions are paid; we did not verify them.
• The monitor's findings. We did not read any monitor report.
• The defendants' answer. The July 2025 notice shows motions to dismiss and to transfer venue were pending. We do not know their outcome.
• The private suit. Its claims, amounts and status are unverified here.
• Recovery. Neither the complaint nor the releases estimate what investors may get back.

What a reader can do with this

1. Pull the public docket. The SEC case is No. 1:25-cv-20436 in the Southern District of Florida. The monitor order requires reports to be filed publicly; PACER lists them, and the SEC posts the complaint and releases at sec.gov.
2. Ask in writing for series-level documents. Request the statement for your own series, the supplement for that series and the asset-ownership records the order told the defendants to prepare. Compare the account statement with the pattern the SEC describes, a fixed return such as 14% times the balance.
3. Separate cash from credits. If your statements show “reinvested” returns, ask how much of your balance was ever paid in cash.
4. Keep every notice. The order says investors must be notified of its filing and of monitor reports. Dated copies matter if a claims process or class action follows.
5. Report to regulators if you have information. The SEC takes tips at sec.gov/submit-tip-or-complaint, and state securities regulators take complaints too.
6. Treat any loss as a tax question, not a headline. Timing and character depend on facts that are not in these documents; see our page on the worthless stock deduction. If your series was the QSBS one, the tax-free claim is the part to ask about.
7. Compare with other sponsor cases. Our pages on the Meyer Global Management complaint and the SQN receiver order show what a smaller adviser case and a receivership look like. To look up a private offering's own filing, see our Form D census.

FAQ

This is analysis of public documents, not investment, legal or tax advice. All figures come from documents read on November 4, 2026: the SEC's complaint in SEC v. Broad Street Global Management, LLC et al., No. 1:25-cv-20436 (Southern District of Florida, Document 8, filed January 29, 2025 and unsealed July 25, 2025), the court's order appointing a monitor (ECF 95, April 21, 2025), SEC Litigation Releases 26289 (April 21, 2025) and 26366 (August 4, 2025) and the court's electronic notice of July 25, 2025. The court docket was not read, and the private suit reported in October 2026 was not read. Allegations in a complaint are not findings of fact.