Sign up for our newsletter! 
Click here.

April 1, 2020 Watch Rose Ray's latest update below on the progress in the potential Class Action law suit. Also, if you are able to contribute towards the funding of the investigation and research related to the law suit (to whether the law suit is viable), please complete this form . You can make a payment via credit card (link will take you to Paypal) or you can do a e-transfer to info@vosmi.ca after you completed the form. Thank you!

September 13, 2019 We held our first protest on September 13, 2019. The participants included Fortress investors, as well as Tier 1 investors, seeing as investors from both groups were failed by the regulators of Ontario. 80-100 protestors attended! But we won't stop there. Our next process is scheduled for October 4th, 2019 at Queen's Park. Read Nick Boisvert's CBC article here .

" Independent Legal Advice" Most of our members received "Indpendent Legal Advice" prior to investing the Fortress Syndicated Mortgages. We conducted a survey from 154 investors. These are the survey results. ILA Member Survey Results.pdf

September 13, 2019 Protest at the Law Society of Ontario & Ontario Ministry of Finance Read More October 4, 2019 Protest at The Ontario Legislative Assembly (Queen's Park) Read More October 18, 2019 Protest in Ottawa at Parliament Hill Read More

March 11, 2020 Watch Rose Ray's Video with an update and request of our investors. As per Rose's video, attached below to the right, is the letter that you may use in your email to FAAN mortgages requesting the documents pertaining legal opinions related to your file. Please ensure you sign the letter before you send it to FAAN. Subject line of your email can read: Request for Legal Opinion Documentation Send the letter via email to FAAN i nfo@faanmortgageadmin.com , with a copy (cc) to roseray@bell.net Thank you! Letter to FAAN Requesting Docs.docx

Closing Arguments (Apr 1-2, 2025) Crown Prosecution's Closing Argument The prosecution began by restating the charges against the defendants, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. The crown had originally 2 charges brought against the defendants- Fraud and Secret Commissions on 4 development projects, however narrowed down the charges to Fraud, on only 2 projects- Collier and Sky City. The Crown counsel Vallery Bayly highlighted the 3 elements of fraud. Deceit, Dishonesty & Deprivation. 1. Deceit This was done via promotional material falsehoods. The language used in marketing materials to describe opinion of value by using the terms “as is” values. The Loan to Value ( LTV) was described as being based on current value and not future value, and marked as being secured. The Prosecutor shows promotional power point presentation , “What is LTV?” The slide states “proper evaluations are essential.” Nowhere does it say LTV was based on Future evaluations. The Prosecutor later showed a pamphlet, which is what the witness received. “What is an appraisal ?” Why are evaluations so important? ” The pamphlet goes on to explain the why an LTV matters. The Prosecutor then moved to Disclosure documents. In the appraisal section of the FSCO investor disclosure firm, the form shows an appraisal of $21 Million. But this was Mr Felice’s opinion of value , when the project would be built out. The line where it says “project value” is left blank. LTV section states appraised as is $21 Million, and LTV is 85%. Projected value is left blank. In the Law Society disclosure form, point #9 indicates “I am satisfied that current value is $21 Million, LTV 85%. In the Memorandum of Understanding (note that the mom & pop SML investors did not receive this document, as it was only provided to accredited investors) the evaluation is listed as $21 million. LTV listed as 85%. However even in these documents there was deceitful language. Investors testified of security & LTV, and the importance of LTV as it gave security to their investment. Prosecution argued that forms had to be filled honestly, and pointed out that Fortress could have disclosed the values or added accurate language. The nature of the opinion of values were dishonest throughout the documents . The crown is not saying the opinion of value should not be used, but it should be used honestly. The crown added that it is not fine to tell mom & pop investors that funds are secure when that is not true. Crown stated that this should not be a “buyer beware” situation. 2. Dishonesty - Dishonest act- Failure to disclose "As Is" Value. The appraisals were available at the time the investors invested in the SMLs. There is strong evidence that Petrozza had the appraisal as at Aug 16, 2013, and an additional accredited appraisal done Aug 26, 2013 which was given to Rathore and Petrozza of $11 million also not disclosed to investors. There as an email chain where they discussed the Collier appraisal of $6.9 million July 24, 2012 . It is a proven fact that Rathore and Petrozza knew the appraisals were vastly lower than that of Mr Felice & Mr Cheung’s evaluations. The prosecution added that the defence will argue that Rathore & Petrozza had to keep appraisals confidential and away from investors. However, a contractual confidential clause does not negate fraud, and it was not on the investors to request appraisals. 3. Deprivation. The prosecution cited the Theroux fraud case. (The judge in this case held that all that was required for a conviction was a dishonest act which had as a consequence that someone was deprived of something; the fact that Théroux honestly believed that the residences would be built, and that the deposits would not be lost, was no defence to the crime. ) The prosecution continued that there is evidence of Rathore and Petrozza’s knowledge of what the investors were being told. For example, the prosecutor refers to the Sky City training video where Petrozza gives training to the brokers. Petrozza reminds agents of suitability, “Know your client” and “make sure your client fully understands”, but yet does not disclose appraisals. He knew what was in the disclosure forms, and what was NOT in the disclosure forms. In an email chain between Rathore & Petrozza July 4-6 2012- Petrozza asked for an appraisal to Jeff Cheung - Subject line is Appraisal. They discuss the $6.9 appraisal. Petrozza knows $6.9 million figure will be a problem and not sufficient. They discuss the Felice evaluation and say “Felice for the win!” Other evidence from the Sky City documents, and similar email chains. Email between Petrozza and another Fortress employee - Fortress employee Mr Cercosta states “ I don’t even know why we paid or wasted time “ … Petrozza replies “I said get me an appraisal or evaluation of $9.4 million or better! “ Cercosta replies “It’s an insulting joke”, Petrozza replies “ Agreed, but we get what we need to get to the end goal”. Prosecution added there is evidence of one of the witnesses speaking directly to Rathore and Petrozza about the LTV. The evaluators Felice and Cheung did not believe their opinions of values would be passed on to mom and pop investors. On April 2013, Felice called and discussed this with Petrozza and later stopped all communication with Fortress. Counsel stated they were dishonest. They needed to know deprivation could occur. They knew LTV was central to them promoting SMLs. They were dishonest to market these investments as secure when they were not. Their dishonesty was intentional and they were personally involved in marketing. Defence's Closing Argument Defence Counsel Scott Fenton began by stating that the RCMP started investigating Fortress in 2016 and executed multiple search warrants in 2018. They discarded to fraud on 4 projects however Crown abandoned 2 projects which left Sky City and Collier. Note that the judge has previously stated that Fraud only needs to be proven on 1 project for a conviction. He continued by saying that Fortress had over 80 projects, and that many were successful. (Fact Check: Note that this is not accurate. Out of the 80 projects, 18 exited with no payout at all to investors (total loss of over $240 Million; 28 projects exited with partial payouts to investors with losses of $180 Million) The total amount of investor funds never repaid to date is over $400 Million. While some projects were successful, some were also discontinued, some projects were sold to another developer.) During his arguments, he only listed a handful which were successful, and did not submit any evidence showing that "most projects" were successful. The Defence argued that: The brokers had a legal duty under the act that their clients understood risks, and that they understood opinion of value, and that it was not the responsibility of Rathore & Petrozza. (Fact check- Petrozza was actually a licensed broker with Centro/BDMC while also a controlling principal of Fortress and had a duty of care to the investors). Centro/BDMC were investor facing, whereas Fortress was developer facing. That Fortress operated a successful business (Fact Check- while some projects were successful, many projects failed to repay investors, a total of $420 million). In the case of Collier, that the initial developer Mady went bankrupt and that is the “Elephant in the room” (Fact Check-Collier was initially developed by Mady Development Corp; Mady filed for creditor protection January 30 2015; In November 2015 Fortress purchased the Collier Centre and as lead developer they were responsible to repay the SML investors. Fortress later defaulted on its first loan to Morisson. Morrison then listed the property for sale in 2018; in 2019 the property was sold however there were no recoveries to repay the SML investors. Numerous documents were signed by investors Brokers were responsible for explaining terms and conditions to SML investors. Independant Legal Advice (ILA) was provided to investors. (Fact Check: the ILA was arranged and paid for by Fortress) All documents were conveyed to investors via brokerages. The documents that Rathore & Petrozza showed the importance of brokers to disclose information to investors. (Defense shows an email with Petrozza and Rathore stating the importance of ILA training, and that one would arrange a webinar and a checklist- and how this email shows a pro-compliance of Rathore and Petrozza.) Defence continued that the documents stated : “The principals will receive further fees based on the profitability and success of the project” And continued that the brokers had a legal fiduciary duty.” To which the judge asked “Were the fees payable whether the project was successful or not? If they were not profitable and not completed do they have to pay the money back?” The defence replied “ Well investors could have asked” The judge responded” I’m asking you .” He added: “ It was calculated assuming it will be profitable?” Defence responded “ It’s not a fee based on profitability”.’’ He added” Anyone was free to ask” - Note that the courtroom erupted in laughter from the viewers. The Defence continued to focus on the risks, and that these investments were not a guaranteed return, and that it was made very clear how risky it was to investor. The Defence refers to “Declaration 10” that explains fees, how investors will only get net investment over in above fees but not guaranteed. There was addendum to declaration 10 that with schedule C2 that states that Fortress will make money before completion of the project. Investors were fully informed of the risks and fees payable in advance of the project completion. (Fact Check- SML investors did not receive this document, this document may have been provided to accredited investors but mom & pop investors). The judge asked if the money was being used for their own purposes, the document is not clear even to the judge. The Defence responded that the document was not hidden, investors had the right to ask about it . Day 2 of Closing Arguments The Defence Gerald Chan continued with closing arguments. Opinions of value were fully disclosed to investors Opinions of value were independent Fortress was not required to disclose the other valuations/ appraisals in its possession-and in fact was prohibited from doing so Crown's cases are distinguishable (ie. this case differs from a precedent case, and therefore, the precedent's legal reasoning or holding does not apply to the this case due to materially different facts.) The Defence restated that Fortress was developer facing, not investor facing and argued that the brokers dealt with the investors, and had the duty to disclose to investors per regulations- however that regulation was not applicable to Fortress. The Judge responded: “Brokers don’t immunize Fortress from responsibility”. The Defence continued that brokers had all the information. Opinions of value were fully disclosed; opinions of value were independent; the value was based on legally permissible methodologies; and Fortress was not required to disclose any other valuations. He added that investors had the broker and Independant Legal advice (ILA) counsel to guide them. (Fact Check: In 2017 The law society later issued a warning to lawyers regarding providing ILAs for syndicated mortgages due to the Fortress losses and undisclosed risks ). The Defence provided investor witnesses as examples of how they could have asked to discuss with the broker, lawyer and financial advisor, and how another investor did not ask for more time to review the documents. Next the Defence moved to address Opinions of Value, and how the future value with the capitalization rate. The judge asked several questions to understand how this rate was arrived at. The judge asked “To what amount can I use my general knowledge of accounting in this case? He adds that an investor would review Fortress with knowledge of residential mortgages, so could he also consider such knowledge? The Defence responded he was “not sure, I’ll reserve comment, need to use what is in the case”. The Defence and Judge go back and forth with the Defense explaining there are different methodologies to calculate current property value. The Judge asked “Isn’t plain meaning of current market value, is what somebody would pay for something today? He attempts to compare to current value of a car, today, and market is market place. The Defence responded that the developer may pay more money for land anticipating value of future completed project, and that there is no evidence from experts on which evaluation method is the right one. The Judge adds, “Rezoning can change land value, future development can change market value. To take a charge on land, isn’t current value if the project does not go ahead. That isn’t in the stated evaluations. If it’s a material fact, isn’t it the value of the land today, in the event the developer party defaults?” The Defence responds that the duty to report is different, assessments were for the loan to value disclosures. Argues that the current market value was the assessment. The Judge adds, “If a buyer agrees on a big house and then discovers it’s a $500 Canadian Tire shack, isn’t that material and not what the investor agrees to?” The Defence responds: “will get to that. ” Then then head for a break. T he Defence goes back to the brokers’ role, and how brokers provided the investors with all the assessment information, it was not a secret to brokers, and reiterated the legal duty is on the brokers. He added that Fortress provided brokers all the assessment information. The Defence continued and said that the judge cannot rely on common judgment regarding valuation and suggests that property valuation is a murky area. The Judge stated- "that land is usually a stable value short of a market collapse or discovery of contaminants, see “as is” as fairly stable value, not speculative." The Defence went back to positioning Fortress as sourcing investments and dealing with developers and how investors should be reviewing documents and asking questions. Concerning the evaluation by Felice, the Defence stated that Felice was unclear about investors receiving the assessment information. Felice expressed concern to his management and his management told him not to worry. As per the email chains on the evaluation, he argued that the emails do not support undue interference in valuation information. Cheung’s initial land value was low, after back and forth with Vince and project documentation, moved to higher valuation. The 3rd email regarding the 9.5M Sky City valuation was to satisfy some mortgage legal requirement. The Defence added that there is nothing wrong with a developer facing firm to also have a focus on the end goal and working with regulated parties and using independent assessments using legitimate methodology. He then brought up the principal broker Anderson, who was the only broker to testify. The defense pointed out how the Email describes Legacy’s assessment approach and how Anderson agreed to the valuation being used. The Defence ended the day’s arguments by stating that investments were not risk-free, and that this case cannot be deemed as fraud.

These are basic questions & answers for investors and the public regarding the VOSMI. FAQ What is VOSMI? Victims of Syndicated Mortgage Investments. What are Syndicated Mortgages? A Syndicated Mortgage is a group of individuals who lend money privately to a borrower to finance real estate developments, such as residential condo buildings. I am an investor of Fortress Real Development SMIs. What can I do? Join our group so that you can stay updated on projects group discussions. You will be required to fill out a questionnaire prior to your admission to the group. Once we have confirmed that you are an investor, you will be able to sign into the member portal. Can I join your group if I did not invest with Fortress RDI? Our group is dedicated to individuals who invested in Fortress Real Development Investments. You can follow us on twitter & keep checking our main website for new updates & VOSMI stories.

May 13, 2020 Update Please watch the video below from Rose Ray. To date we have received a total of $14,000 in contributions to help fund the investigation of our potential class action law suit. Those funds will be advanced by the admins of VOSMI to the investor who fronted the $50,000. If you have not yet contributed $100 towards this endeavor, please complete this form . You may pay via credit card or an transfer . Instructions included in the link provided .

Exploring a Class Action Law Suit for Fortress Investors Investigative Team & Updates the research of Class Action Law Suits A great deal of research was undertaken with regards to class action law suits for the Fortress syn dicated mortgage investors. The Investigative Team was comprised of the following professionals: • Darryl Levitt (lawyer; Darryl Levitt Law ) • Dave Oswald (forensic accountant, Forensic Restitution ) • Bruce Livesey (private investigator; i20 Research Inc .) Rose Ray, a broker, worked tirelessly with this team in its effort to pursue a class action law suit that would benefit the victims. Here are the updates we were provided by Rose and the team. Although it is unfortunate that a class action law suit did not come to fruition, we thank Rose and the team for their incredible efforts and countless of hours in their work to try to bring justice to the syndicated mortgage victims. Updates from Rose Ray (2019-2022) Video dated Nov 29, 2019 An anonymous investor has contributed $50,000 to help fund this investigation to help bring the research to the next level. Our ask is for the Fortress investors to contribute $100 (or an amount they can afford) to help reimburse the investor's generous contribution. Click here to view video. Click here to read Darryl Levitt's letter to investors. Note: Contribution form has since been updated - see April 22, 2021 update. Video dated Feb 3, 2020. Click here to view video. Summary: Reminder to investors to save their documents pertaining to their investments in case the team requires the files. Promissory note holders to contact Rose as well as they will be addressed separately from SML investors; as well as investors who were "transferred" from one project to another knowingly or unknowingly. Promotional materials, recordings of events would be appreciated as well for the projects listed in the above paragraph. Video dated March 11, 2020. Click here to view video. Investigative work is ongoing. Rose requesting investors to write to FAAN (details in video.) (Note: This ask is no longer required) Video dated April l, 2020. Click here to view video. Summary: Key Parties identified; Fortress, Project owners/corporations/key personnel; Auditors, Trustees, Developers, Appraisers & evaluators, agents, brokers & law firms.1st two projects of interest to pursue initially: Sky City & Colliers. I nvestigative reports have been compiled; Investigative Team is in discussion with law firms and litigation funders. Video dated May 17, 2020. Click here to view video. Summary: Update from Rose on Funding. Approximately $14,000 has been contributed from investors to date. Videos dated April 12, 2021 Video regarding law firm Groia & Company. Click here to watch the video & here to read the statement of claim regarding BRAD J. LAMB REALTY INC., BRAD J. LAMB, and LAMB DEV. Please ensure you read the statement of claim to see whether your project is included. Video regarding lawyers Mitchell Wine & Margaret Waddell. Click here to watch the video. Please refer to this page for further information on the class action law suits & statements of claim regarding the following projects: The Orchard, Progress Manors (Ten 88); Sutton; Colliers; Harmony Simcoe. April 22, 2021 There has been a lot of excitement regarding the mew class action law suit announcements pertaining to the law suits led by Groia & Company law firm and the Mitchell Wine & Margaret Waddell team. The investigative team lead by Darryl Levitt has been working very diligently to help us. June 6, 2022 Update from Rose Ray regarding Brad Lamb Class Action Law Suit. "I wanted to bring everyone up to speed on the status of the class action we have been working on for the past 2yrs. As you know, a law firm by the name of Groia had filed a Statement of Claim about a year ago for a class action lawsuit against Brad Lamb. Unfortunately Groia was not able to continue with the law suit as they could not find funders to commit to funding the law suit. As soon as we were informed of this news, Corinne and I communicated with another law firm in the hopes they would take on the law suit. Unfortunately after carefully reviewing the files and information, they declined as well. At this point, neither can pursue this lawsuit. ALL lawyers agree that fraud has taken place, no one disputes that. The issue is Legally do they have enough evidence that proves Brad Lamb KNEW that investors were mislead and what is his direct liability, unfortunately the opinion is that we don’t have enough evidence. Even though we have provided hundreds of documents, videos etc.. there is not enough certainty that our case will win. This means the risk and the cost are just too high for a funder and for a law firm to take on. Remember if a law firm loses, they have to pay all the costs of the other law firm, and we are talking about millions of dollars for this type of case. This is not the news we wanted to deliver to you. We have invested countless hours pursuing a way to get funds back to investors. However, we have exhausted all avenues for a class action lawsuit. Thank you to all that were willing to assist by providing files etc. The investor who provided the initial funds for all the work that was done, is still out an additional $18,100. To all those who contributed to reimbursing – THANK YOU. It is unfortunate that more investors did not contribute, since this investor took a huge risk to try and find justice for all of us, it would be a nominal amount if all contributed. The news we have received is an additional blow for sure to this investor. If any of you have not contributed , and would be willing to help alleviate the financial burden for this investor, you may send an e-transfer to info@vosmi.ca . Any amount would be appreciated. ($20-$100). Other payment arrangements are accepted such as a cheque or PayPal ."

News stories related to Syndicated Mortgage Investments, Fortress Real Developments, and the Regulators of Ontario who failed the investors. Media/News article s Fortress in the News Regulators in the News Nov 30, 2017 Dec 17, 2018 VOSMI in the News "Fortress Real Developments co-founders found guilty of fraud" - Globe & Mail Feb 2, 1018 Feb 2, 1018

An animated & explanatory timeline of events describing the Fortress Real Development Syndicated Mortgage Investment Fraud charges & the failures of the regulators, and how VOSMI was created. Timeline The Founders of Fortress RDI began working together since 2002. This timeline traces the key milestones, from their early business ventures and the creation of Fortress, to regulatory shortcomings, RCMP investigations, and the criminal legal proceedings that continue today. Please view this timeline slideshow on computer or tablet vs a phone for optimal viewing.