Sometimes a lawsuit boils down to a single question: did the numbers describe reality, or did reality get bent to fit the numbers? A real estate developer and a property owner are now accusing Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Inc. of the latter, suing the commercial real estate giant for more than $12 million over allegedly misleading financial projections tied to a luxury apartment tower in Washington, D.C.

The Lawsuit's Central Claim

Developer Rishi Bhatnagar and property owner 9 New York Ave LLC filed suit Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court, accusing JLL of deliberately inflating net operating income projections for a 14-story luxury multifamily development. The project sits on land the plaintiffs say they originally purchased for $4.6 million — a modest starting point compared to the financial fallout that followed.

A Costly Trust Misplaced

According to the complaint, JLL "induced" the plaintiffs to pour more than $13 million into the project, a decision the plaintiffs say ultimately cost them over $12 million — a loss so steep it reads less like a bad investment and more like a financial trapdoor that opened beneath them.

Why the Numbers Kept Climbing

At the heart of the allegations is a pattern the plaintiffs describe as numbers moving not because the property changed, but because a lender's threshold demanded it. The suit claims JLL repeatedly revised its projected stabilized net operating income upward, specifically to satisfy the lender's debt-yield requirement.

"A building whose honest NOI cannot clear the lender's minimum debt yield either must borrow less or cannot be financed at all," the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint — framing the alleged inflation as a workaround for a financing obstacle rather than an honest reassessment of the property's earning potential.

How JLL Entered the Picture

JLL's involvement traces back to a March 2021 presentation aimed at securing the company's role as the "exclusive representative for the project's financing," according to the suit. That pitch led to a project management agreement executed the following month, putting JLL in charge of what the plaintiffs describe as "the project's budget, economics and risks."

A Paper Trail of Rising Projections

The March 2021 presentation pegged the development's projected net operating income at more than $1.6 million — a figure that, notably, wasn't wildly out of step with an earlier appraisal from Riley & Associates LLC.

Where the Numbers First Diverged

That earlier appraisal came from Capital Bank, the land acquisition lender, which had selected Riley & Associates in December 2020 to evaluate the property. Riley determined the projected net operating income at just over $1.3 million and valued the property at $30 million, according to the plaintiffs.

From there, the trajectory shifted dramatically. By December 2021, a JLL financing memorandum pushed the net operating income projection up to nearly $2 million. Then, in January 2022, yet another JLL memorandum showed the figure climbing past $2 million entirely.

A Quarter-Million-Dollar Climb With No Clear Cause

"Across these versions, JLL revised its own stabilized NOI upward by more than $420,000 — roughly 25% — with no material change in the property," the plaintiffs alleged, adding that at the capitalization rates reflected in JLL's own underwriting — between 4% and 5% — an increase of that size translates into roughly $8 million to $10 million in overstated property value.

"The NOI did not rise because the property changed," the plaintiffs added. "It rose because the threshold had to be met" — a line that cuts to the core of the entire lawsuit.

Alleged Methods Behind the Inflation

The plaintiffs claim JLL had direct access to Riley & Associates' original appraisal, yet still moved forward with inflated projections through several specific tactics — including modeling the property's vacancy rate incorrectly and ignoring rent concessions altogether, despite the fact that the project lacked parking and offered relatively few amenities compared to competing developments.

A Second Independent Appraisal Told a Different Story

Adding another data point to the dispute, project lender Hingham Institution for Savings separately hired Cushman & Wakefield to appraise the development. That appraisal found a projected net operating income of just over $1.8 million — landing much closer to Riley's original, more conservative figure than to JLL's escalating projections.

Reality Eventually Caught Up

According to the plaintiffs, time ultimately vindicated Riley's original numbers rather than JLL's. "Its actual stabilized operating results fell far short of JLL's $2,036,354 projection and approximated Riley's honest 2020 figure," the plaintiffs alleged. The property was eventually sold in April 2026 for approximately $30.5 million — landing within roughly 2% of Riley's original 2020 projection, but nearly $20 million below JLL's $50,997,681 valuation figure.

A Dispute Over a Prior Agreement

Beyond the core fraud allegations, the lawsuit also wades into a dispute over a separate letter agreement between JLL and Bhatnagar. The plaintiffs say JLL asserted in July that this letter governs the case's allegations, but the plaintiffs counter that the agreement applies only to JLL's brokerage fees — nothing more. They further note the letter was signed solely by JLL and Bhatnagar individually, not by 9 New York Ave LLC, the property-owning entity also named as a plaintiff.

Where Things Stand

JLL and counsel for the plaintiffs didn't respond to a request for comment Friday, and counsel information for JLL wasn't immediately available. The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan D. Shea and Alexander N. Loftus of Loftus & Eisenberg Ltd.