Sign up for our newsletter! 
Click here.

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.

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

Closing Arguments (Apr 1-2, 2025) Day 1 Crown Prosecution's Closing Argument The prosecution began by restating the charges against the defendants, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. Originally there were two charges- Fraud and Secret Commissions on four development projects, however the Crown narrowed this to Fraud on two projects: Collier and Sky City . Crown counsel Vallery Bayly highlighted the three elements of fraud. Deceit, Dishonesty & Deprivation. 1. Deceit 2. Dishonesty 3. Deprivation 1. Deceit The prosecution argued that promotional contained falsehoods. Documents used terms like "as is" and described Loan to Value "LTV" based on current value, and called the investment secured without clarifying that the values were opinions, not actual appraisals. Materials shows included a “What is LTV ?” slide stating “proper evaluations are essential” without indicating the basis for the LTV, and a pamphlet explaining appraisals and "why LTV matter s". The appraisal section of the FSCO investor disclosure firm, showed an appraisal of $21 Million, however this was this was the opinion of value, ie the future value. In some documents the "project value" line was left blank, yet the i n the Law Society disclosure form, point #9 indicates “I am satisfied that current value is $21 Million, LTV 85%. The prosecution stressed that investors testified about security and LTV being import to their investments and argued that forms should have been honest. It was not acceptable to tell investors their funds were secure when that was not true. The Crown stated this was not a "buyer beware" situation. 2. Dishonesty The prosecution argued the the failure to disclose actual "as is" appraisals was dishonest . Evidence suggested that Petrozza had an appraisal as of August 16, 2013, and anther $11 million appraisal, both not provided to investors. Emails discussed a July 24, 2012 appraisal of $6.9 million, demonstrating that Rathore and Petrozza knew real estate appraisals were much lower than the figures presented publicly. The prosecution anticipated the defence would argue that appraisals had to be kept confidential, 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, noting that a dishonest act resulting in deprivation alone suffices conviction- even if the defendants honestly believed in the completion of projects. Prosecution emphasized evidence showing: Rathore and Petrozza were investors were told and not told - they provided training and were personally involved in the marketing materials Training videos and emails demonstrated knowledge of disclosure omissions . 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”. Evaluators confirmed they did not intend their opinions of value to be shared with mom and pop investors. The Crown concluded that the defendants knowingly marketed the investments as secure when they were not, and this dishonesty caused deprivation to the investors. Defence's Closing Argument Scott Fenton began by noting the RCMP lengthy investigation and explaining that the Crown narrowed the charged to two projects. Fenton argued that: Fortress had over 80 projects, and many were successful . (Note that this statement was not supported by evidence. To review a Fortress project analysis, please refer here. 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. During his arguments, he only listed a handful which were successful. ) Brokers had a legal duty under the act to ensure their clients understood risks and the opinions of value, and this responsibility did not lie with Rathore & Petrozza. (Note: 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). Fortress was developer facing, while Centro/BDMC were investor facing The Defence stressed that: Investors could have asked questions or reviews materials more carefully. 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. 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. At one point, the judged 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?” and the t he 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” and added” Anyone was free to ask” (Note that the courtroom erupted in laughter from the viewers.) The defence continued to emphasize risk disclosure and argued that the evidence did not support a finding of fraud. Day 2 Defence Closing Arguments Defence Gerald Chan reiterated that: 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 argued that: Fortress was not investor-facing, and disclosures to investors were made by brokers and lawyers. 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 judge cannot rely on common market judgement about valuation methods. Different valuation methodologies exist, and the evidence did not conclusively show misuse. In exchange with the judge about valuation methodology the defence argued that anticipated future value could legitimately affect valuations and that property valuation is a "murky area". The defence also stated that email chains did not demonstrate undue interference in valuation information and that working with developers and using independent assessments was lawful. The closing argument ended with the defence maintaining that the case did cannot be deemed as fraud.

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 ."

Please wait a moment for the form to load...

Feb 3, 2020 Watch Rose Ray's Update regarding our potential class action law suit.

Coming soon! Check back later.

The Developers who partnered with Fortress Over 25 real estate developers partnered with Fortress Developments. Lamb Development Corp partnered with Fortress on 14 real estate projects. Lamb failed to repay over $47 Million to the Syndicate Mortgage investors. Developer Pie Chart

Fortress Promo Material The following are examples of the promotional material used by Fortress in promoting syndicated mortgage investments. Collier Termsheet Termsheet for the Collier project which was presented to the Syndicate Mortgage investors. Notice the terminology: "Face amount of your investment is fully Registered & Secured via a charge against the property." Sky City Ternsheet Similar features are repeated in this term sheet which was provided to the investors. Note that the theme of these promo materials are the same across all of Fortress projects. "Face amount of your investment is fully Registered & Secured via a charge against the property." This project began as a parking lot, and ended as a parking lot. Where did all the investors money go? Services This is your Services section. This is a great place to give more information about the services you provide. You can write a general description of what your business offers then add more details below. This section can be adapted for your website. You may choose to highlight other things like courses or programs, or to share special features about your business that you want to promote. Double click on the text box to edit the text and make it your own. Custom Project Personal Solution Planning Expert Guidance Package

Criminal Trial - R. v. Rathore & Petrozza The criminal trial of R vs Rathore & Petrozza, principals of Fortress Real Developments Inc., began in October 2024 and concluded with a verdict in May 2025. A sentencing submissions took place on December 3, 2025, and the sentencing hearing is scheduled on February 2, 2026. This page provides key information about the trial, its outcomes and related media coverage. About the Criminal Trial Trial Background Courthouse Location Q & A Media Coverage Up Trial summary Crown Prosecutor, Defense opening arguments & witness testimonies Read More > closing arguments Summary of Crown Prosecutor & Defense closing arguments Read More > Verdict Justice D Moores verdict & reason for decision Read More > Sentencing Sentencing Submission Hearing Dec 3/25 Read More >