On June 2, 2026, a foreign investor filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that an EB-5 sponsor left him empty-handed after a $72 million property sale. The case, Volkov v. Florida Overseas Investment Center et al., offers a cautionary tale for financial advisors who recommend private placements or alternative investments to clients.
Anton Volkov, the plaintiff, says he invested $500,000 into Ventech Partners II, a limited partnership formed to back a Miami property called Design 41, and paid an additional $50,000 fee, for a total outlay of $550,000. The EB-5 program allows foreign nationals to obtain U.S. residency by funding projects that create at least 10 jobs per investor. According to the complaint, the offering materials projected roughly 555 jobs—more than 14 per investor—well above the program's minimum. However, Volkov alleges that 295 of those jobs, or 53%, depended on leasing up the building, which was only about 25% occupied when he committed his funds.
The complaint further alleges that the sponsor, Florida Overseas Investment Center, and its controlling principal had previously run a troubled EB-5 project, the Las Olas Ocean Resort. A $36.94 million foreclosure hit that project on January 25, 2018—just 14 days before Volkov invested in Design 41—and the developer filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on February 26, 2018. Volkov claims this history was never disclosed to him.
Additionally, the lawsuit states that Florida Overseas Investment Center was listed as “Non-Transparent” on an industry tracking site for failing to file required annual reports with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Volkov says this information was also withheld.
The structure of the investment is another point of contention. Volkov alleges that his capital was subordinated to up to $24 million in construction debt and a $14.5 million position held by another partnership, even though the offering materials described his vehicle as an “equal co-investor.” This discrepancy between the label and the actual capital stack, the complaint argues, constitutes a half-truth that undermines securities claims.
In February 2026, Design 41 sold for $72 million, exceeding its appraisals, leaving roughly $33.5 million after senior debt was satisfied. Volkov says he has received no principal, no interest, and no accounting from the sponsor. His claims include securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, control-person liability under Section 20(a), Florida securities and consumer-protection violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. He seeks rescission, damages, disgorgement, and punitive damages.
For RIA principals and broker-dealer compliance staff, the case underscores several lessons. Projections must include honest risk language, a sponsor’s history and regulatory standing are material facts, and terms like “secured” and “equal” must align with the actual numbers. Advisors should also note the parallels to other recent litigation, such as the FS KKR Capital shareholder derivative suit, which similarly alleges hidden risks.
The EB-5 program has long been a source of controversy, and this case may prompt closer scrutiny of sponsor disclosures. For advisors, the takeaway is clear: due diligence on alternative investments must extend beyond the offering documents to include the sponsor’s track record and compliance history. As the industry sees more cross-border capital flows, such as those highlighted in Antigua and Barbuda’s pitch to U.S. investors, the need for rigorous oversight only grows.
