What Happened to Prodigy Network? Bankruptcy Still Open in 2026

Prodigy Network before the fall: what the records show it was

Prodigy Network sold investors pieces of New York real estate projects, often through offshore vehicles, and ran property management for several buildings under The Assemblage brand, according to the trustee. Its partner on the New York deals was Shorewood Real Estate Group; the two jointly owned Prodigy Shorewood Investment Management, LLC (PSIM), which the Form D filings name as manager and promoter of the funds.

The organizational chart attached to the bankruptcy schedules lists the New York project vehicles: PSIM 84 William (84 William Street, the extended-stay hotel the press knew as AKA Wall Street), PSIM 17 John (17 John Street, home of The Assemblage John Street co-working and co-living space in press reports), PSIM 234 East 46th, PSIM 25th Street (a 114 E. 25th Street fund series; press reports placed The Assemblage Nomad on East 25th Street), PSIM 331 PAS and PSIM 85 W Broadway. The two Chicago projects were a 254-unit apartment building planned at 1400 North Orleans and a 13-story hotel planned at 1234 West Randolph with The Standard. Niño held 91.65% of Prodigy Network, LLC's Class A units and employees 8.35% of the Class B units, on the pre-money version of that chart.

One correction to a common description: AKA Wall Street and 17 John were two different buildings. AKA Wall Street was at 84 William Street; 17 John Street was The Assemblage John Street and, at the end, Prodigy's own office address on its bankruptcy petition.

How Prodigy Network unraveled, 2019 to 2021

The best inside account is the trustee's, in his October 2022 motion to settle with the D&O insurer. He describes a firm with no board of directors, where Niño “effectively performed all functions” of one, and where executives were told only what they needed for their own job. These are the trustee's allegations in support of a settlement, not findings by a court.

The trustee lists the alleged failures that, in his view, could support claims against directors and officers: gross mismanagement, cost overruns on several developments, an upstate New York property bought from Niño himself to become a retreat, no succession plan despite Niño's earlier cancer, and, after his death, letting Shorewood “seize control or otherwise dispose of numerous assets”. In 2019 and 2020, he writes, investors sued Prodigy affiliates and “No defense was offered in the majority of these suits, leading to a number of defaults.” Those claims were settled with the insurers rather than tried.

The bankruptcy: what Prodigy Network owed and owned

Eleven entities filed the same day: Prodigy Network, LLC; Prodigy Network Miami, LLC; The Assemblage Hospitality, LLC; and eight Chicago vehicles (the 1234 W Randolph and 1400 N Orleans realty associates, newcos and Prodigy Shorewood master and feeder fund series). The cases are jointly administered under No. 21-10622 before Judge John Dorsey, with Jeoffrey L. Burtch as Chapter 7 trustee. The case began as a no-asset case and was converted to an asset case on May 28, 2021, which opened a claims process; proofs of claim were due August 30, 2021.

The secured line is worth a second look if you were a lender rather than an equity investor: all $4.76 million of it is promissory notes tied to an 84 William bridge loan, from holders with addresses in Latin America and the British Virgin Islands, and the schedule puts the value of the collateral behind each at $0. The parent's schedules do not include the investors' equity in the project entities; those investors are creditors or equity holders of other entities, and many filed claims in this case, which is why claim numbers on the docket run to at least 1,476.

The schedules were not complete. The trustee told the court that he learned of one Chicago interest only through conversations, because “the relevant asset was not scheduled.”

The Chicago auction: a $14.4 million lot, a $7.65 million bid

The Chicago deals were the only assets the estate itself could sell. In both, Prodigy entities had put up the capital for a 90% non-managing interest; a 10% partner affiliated with DDG and Marc Realty Capital managed the joint venture.

Ten days before the bankruptcy, on or about March 15, 2021, the JV agreements had been amended to remove the Prodigy entities' consent rights; the amendments were signed for the Prodigy side by the manager who also authorized the bankruptcy filing. A group of investor claimants objected that this made the 90% stake “virtually unmarketable” and pointed out that the opening offer was almost $12 million below the 2019 land price. The trustee ran the auction anyway; with almost 40 bids, the 1400 stake went for more than three times the opening bid ($7.65 million against $2.25 million). Whatever the sale netted is money of the Chicago debtors' estates, which were later partly consolidated; the docket text does not show the closing figures.

Insurance and other recoveries

The insurance deal was contested. Winston & Strawn, which had defended Prodigy entities before the filing, objected that the release let Great American keep some 40% of the policy, “removing almost $1.6 million in value from the reach of creditors.” The court approved it. The settlements with the project partners and Shorewood matter most to New York investors, because the trustee had alleged that Shorewood took control of assets after Niño's death; their amounts are in documents not available on the free docket.

Against that, the estate's lawyers: Cozen O'Connor, general counsel, has been awarded $691,293.50 in fees over four interim applications (our sum), and DGW Kramer LLP, special litigation counsel paid partly on contingency (25% of recoveries before suit, 35% after), applied for $1,005,750 in fees for May 2021 to April 2024 in its final application, which was approved on May 2, 2024. That is about $1.7 million (our sum) before the trustee's own commission and accountants. DGW Kramer had represented overseas investors suing Prodigy before the filing.

Did investors get anything back?

Not through the bankruptcy so far. We found no trustee's final report, distribution motion or order paying creditors on the docket through its latest entry on October 7, 2026, five and a half years after filing. The case remains open, so any payout would come after remaining matters close and fees are paid, and it would be shared among the investor claims, the noteholders and other creditors in the relevant estates.

Outside the bankruptcy, investors who sued in 2020 won judgments that, because the companies did not defend, were entered by default:

A default judgment against an insolvent company is a claim, not cash. The $808,596.96 judgment also binds PSIM, the Prodigy-Shorewood management company, which was not one of the eleven debtors; that is the kind of non-debtor defendant against which a judgment can still matter. We read three of the eleven dockets; the plaintiffs are individual investors and investment companies, and we do not name them. State-court cases (the schedules list two in New York County Supreme Court's Commercial Division) and lender foreclosures on the New York buildings were not searched in court records for this page.

What EDGAR shows, and what it does not

Prodigy's SEC footprint is small and old. We found eight Form D notices, all filed in November 2013 or October 2014, and nothing after. None is by Prodigy Network, LLC itself, even though the trustee says it sold securities in the parent in 2018 and 2019, and none covers 17 John Street, The Assemblage, Chicago or the other later projects. A Form D is a notice, not a registration, and an offering sold only to investors outside the United States does not need one, so the absence does not by itself mean a rule was broken. It does mean that most of what Prodigy raised cannot be checked on EDGAR.

The 2013 pair both report a first sale on May 23, 2013, for 84 William Street; the Cayman company's $14.5 million may be part of the realty company's $23.5 million, so the two should not simply be added. The 2014 filings describe a master-feeder fund whose first sale was September 16, 2014: the master's $8.4 million from 2 investors equals its two feeders' $8.2 million plus $0.2 million (our arithmetic), raised from 92 investors. All eight report $0 in sales commissions. The $54.8 million in the summary is the plain sum of the five non-zero amounts and is an upper bound on what these notices show.

What a Prodigy investor can do with this

• Check whether you filed a claim, and in which estate. The bar date was August 30, 2021. The joint case number is 21-10622 (Bankr. D. Del.); your claim is against the entity you invested in or lent to, and the 2024 consolidation order changed which estates are pooled. The trustee's counsel (Cozen O'Connor, Wilmington) is the contact for claim status.
• If you hold a judgment, look at who it binds. Judgments against non-debtor entities such as PSIM or project companies are outside the automatic stay; judgments against the eleven debtors are just claims in the bankruptcy.
• If you lent on the 84 William bridge, your note is scheduled as secured, but the collateral is valued at $0, so expect it to be treated largely as unsecured.
• Document the loss for taxes. Equity in a project entity that will never pay is usually a capital loss in the year it becomes worthless; a bad loan is treated differently. See our crowdfunding tax-loss guide.
• If you are vetting a similar sponsor, the Prodigy record shows what to ask for: a board or independent manager, audited statements, a Form D for the exact offering you are buying, who controls the joint venture you are funding, and what happens if the founder is gone. Our red-flags checklist and platform failures tracker cover other cases; GPB Capital and PeerStreet show how receivership and Chapter 11 payouts compare with a Chapter 7 like this one.

This is analysis of public documents, not investment, legal or tax advice.

FAQ

Sources, read on October 9, 2026: eight Form D filings on SEC EDGAR by 84 William Street Realty Associates, LLC (CIK 1590881), Prodigy Shorewood New York REP Co. (1590878), Prodigy Shorewood Master REP Fund, LLC (1592831), Prodigy Shorewood Domestic Feeder REP Fund, LLC (1592832) and Prodigy Shorewood New York REP Fund, LP (1592833), accession on every row of the CSV; the docket of In re Prodigy Network, LLC, No. 21-10622 (Bankr. D. Del.) and these filings in it: the voluntary petition, schedules and statement of financial affairs (D.I. 1), the joint administration motion (D.I. 10), the special-counsel retention application (D.I. 21), the Chicago sale motion (D.I. 69), the investor claimants' objection (D.I. 105), the trustee's sale declaration (D.I. 124), the insurance settlement motions and declaration (D.I. 190, 207, 217), the Winston & Strawn objection (D.I. 199) and the 1450 Brickell settlement motion (D.I. 205); the S.D.N.Y. dockets of cases 1:20-cv-00968, 1:20-cv-02318, 1:20-cv-07297 and 1:20-cv-07572; and CourtListener's federal case index searched for “Prodigy”. Sums and comparisons are our arithmetic. State courts, lender foreclosure files, Colombian regulators and SEC litigation releases beyond a name search were not reviewed. This is analysis of public documents, not investment, legal or tax advice.