Sign up for our newsletter! 
Click here.

Coming soon! Check back later.

Trial Summary These are not official court transcripts. They are observations and summaries of the prosecution & defence questioning and witness testimony. Opening Statements Prosecution Opening Remarks The Prosecution alleges that: Rathore and Petrozza deceived the public by misrepresenting the true land value of the projects in which they were investing  They obtained opinions of value and represented them as actual appraisals to brokers and investors, even though the property value was substantially less than the stated opinion of value Rathore and Petrozza kept a large portion of the investors’ money for themselves, and this was not disclosed to investors Defence Opening Remarks Advance payments to Fortress were disclosed to the public Opinions of value were provided to investors Rathore & Petrozza did not act alone, they had office staff assisting them Fortress retained law firms ( Norton Rose; Gowlings) for tax opinions Fortress used a reputable custodian Olympia Trust, to hold the investors’ funds Many development projects were successful A failed project is not an indicator of fraud Clients are plead not guilty of fraud and secret commissions and the defence seeks acquittal of all charges. Week 1 (Oct 28 -Nov 2024) Witness #1 Investor #1 Prosecution Questioning The first witness was a retired female who put $50,000 in cash in the Collier project with her husband, and $70,000 registered funds into Harmony Village Sheppard. She previously worked in IT and part-time as a real estate agent. She attended a Fortress presentation in Barrie where both Rathore and Petrozza spoke. Materials presented described the investments as: low risk 8% interest loan to value (LTV) 2-year term principal secured by land a statement reading: "The investors get their money back before developers get theirs ". She received interest payments for Collier until January 2015, after which she was notified the project entered receivership. She stopped receiving interest and did not receive her principal back. Harmony Village went into receivership and the investors received 70% repayment once the land was sold. The Prosecution showed the witness an email exchange regarding an Opinion of Value. The email was from Cushman & Wakefield, where they were advising Fortress that it was understood by both parties that the evaluation they were proving for the Collier project was not a formal value. The witness commented that at the presentation she attended, the figure that was provided was referred to as an "appraisal", not Opinion of Value. The Prosecution went through the SML loan documentation and the witness admitted she did not pay attention to details. The prosecution also pointed out a page in the documentation that referred to an “appraisal” of the property, and in another paragraph referring to the “as is” value at $21 million. (Note that "as is" value of a property should be the actual value of the property or of the land- it is not a "built out" value. ) The Prosecution asked if she understood what this meant, to which she replied “just the land”. She also believed the LTV was 85%. They then went through an appraisal report dated June 2012. This is a month or so prior to Cushman Wakefield Opinion of Value. The land value was a mere $7.5 million. The witness was unaware this appraisal existed. The Prosecution went through the Fee Disclosure overview, a document that listed how the money (SML) was being used. legal fee (paid by borrower), mortgage brokerage fee (Centro/BDMC). It listed lawyers, Centro, and brokers. Fortress was not listed. Defence Questioning The Defence emphasized the witness did not read the documents carefully. Now keep in mind, all the presentations and flyers she has seen about Fortress SMLs promoted the SML investment as being low risk, name on title, 8% annual interest etc. The defence asked if her understanding was that the SML was safe? The witness said yes, based on the appraisal value she was given. The defence asked if it was the broker who made her feel at ease? The witness said yes, but it was because of appraisal value making the investment feel safe. The Defence reviewed the FSCO (financial regulator’s form.) The form stated that “brokers, agents or related parties may receive a percentage of profits and may be paid in advance of project completion.” The Defence asked “you don’t recall asking how much Fortress would get paid? ” She replied no. Witness # 2 Principal Broker FDS Prosecution Questioning The FDS Principal Broker testified he oversaw compliance at FDS, broker, training, and documentation review. As Fortress COO, Petrozza provided the brokerages (FDS, FMP, FFM) with the SML documents and compliance videos; Rathore handled the project/development aspects. A Sky City webinar was played where Rathore discussed project highlight, and Petrozza discussed SML terms, and reviewed the project fact sheet which included LTV of 85% and 8% interest. He stated the $18 million evaluation was provided by Global Legacy, and a face value up to $35 million. He mentioned risks ( non-liquid investment, locked in funds). He added that the investment is "secured against the land". He advised brokers met to "scare investors" but to explain disclosures and risks. An August 2013 email revealed a Sky City appraisal of $5.9 million that was not shared with investors and brokers. The witness said if he had known this, it would have been a huge red flag and would have made the investment RRSP non-eligible. The Prosecution went back to the appraisal emails, where the author states the residual value would be $11 million ( based on hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions) to which Petrozza’s email reply to the other Fortress staff is that the appraisal is a "joke of an appraisal", and to "focus on the end goal" Defence Questioning The witness also discussed a regulatory correspondence (FSCO) between the witness, Rathore, Petrozza, Ildina Galati (former principal broker of Centro/BDMC), and other staff. FSCO was seeking to clarify how Fortress and the brokerages were being paid, and the witness suggested to the group that he make a presentation to FSCO. Petrozza responded that the witness should not volunteer to do a presentation. The witness responded to Petrozza that he wanted the regulator to understand what they are doing and that it was" crystal clear". The witness stated to the prosecution that it was the role of Centro/BDMC to obtain and verify the appraisals. (Note that Petrozza was a licensed broker for Centro; while also being COO of Fortress). The appraisals and evaluations were then provided by Centro to the brokerages. The witness was also asked whether he was aware how Rathore & Petrozza were getting paid - the witness responded that he understood they were paid a portion of profits, upon project completion. He said that if Rathore and Petrozza were taking a percentage of the SML funds and paying themselves, it should have been disclosed to investors. The witness advised that all templates and documentation they received describing the KTV, SML advantages, project fact sheets, evaluations, was provided to them by Centro (BDMC) and Fortress. Witness # 3 Investor #2 Prosecution Questioning Another female investor testified she invested $80,000 in Collier and other Fortress projects with her retirement savings. She felt assured that the SML investments were safe and fully secured against the land, based on the information presented to her by Fortress, Centro, and the broker. The Defence highlighted fine print indicating Fortress would be paid before completion and with profits. She acknowledged signing but said this was not made clear to her. The defence stressed that brokers had a duty to explain risks. Witness # 4 FDS President An FDS employee testified that he understood Fortress received 50/50 commission with the developers. When asked what cars Rathore and Petrozza drive, he recalled several luxury vehicles ( Aston Martin, a Ferrari California, a Porsche Panerama, and a Porsche GT3.). Note that the Defence objected, however the judge allowed the question. The Prosecution showed the witness an appraisal. This was the first time he saw it, and confirmed investors were not given it. The evaluation provided to investors was overstated ( $21m vs. actual $7.5m) The defence maintained Fortress SMLs were high risk investments, commissions and risks fully disclosed and signed by investors; all investors were given independent legal advice. Witness # 5 Cushman & Wakefield SVP-Opinion of Value A senior VP at Cushman & Wakefield testified the Opinion of Value provided to Fortress in 2012 was for internal use only, not intended to be an appraisal or shared with the public. He was approached in 2012 by Petrozza, who is his cousin, for an Opinion of Value for the Collier project. Once he leaned it was used publicly, and in brochures, he cut ties with Fortress. The Defence asked the witness if his letter to Fortress indicated that it was to be used for internal purposes only, and the witness replied that the investors, as he understood, were the purchasers of the land. He maintained that he did not intend for the Opinion of Value to be shared with the general public. Week 2 (Nov 4- 5, 2024 Witness # 6 Investor #3 A woman who invested in Sky City and several other projects testified Fortress presentations and documentation led her to believe the SML investments were low risk. The investor met both Rathore and Petrozza. Initially, a couple of the projects paid off. She referred other people to invest as well, however they no longer speak to her. The defence focussed again on signed disclosures, which she stated she did not clearly understand, even calling herself "stupid for failing to comprehend them. Witness # 7 Global Legacy Managing Partner -Opinions of Value A managing partner of Global Legacy testified he is not accredited to provide appraisals, however he does have an MBA. He did not know that "mom & pop” investors would receive his opinions of value. The opinions of value were all based on the information that Fortress supplied to Global Legacy. He expected his opinions of value would be used internally, not shared with the investors. The Defence went into a lengthy presentation that focused on how the Opinion of Value increased over the years and was looking to justify how their Opinions of Value increased. The defence ignored addressing appraisals. Witness # 8 Investor #4 A male investor with $900,000 across 8 projects testified he attended presentations, spoke with the principals over the phone, believed his name would be on title and his investment was secure. Specifically, the security of the investment was the loan to value ratio, and that he would be on the deed of the property. He did not feel his SML investments were risky. He understood that the Opinion of Value and appraisal meant the same thing, and thought his money was being used for the purchase of the land and soft costs as per Petrozza and Rathore. During cross-examination the defence went through documents that he signed. The witness made it clear that he never had documents to review before signing. He understood that Fortress oversaw all facets of every project with the developers. The defence again focused on the risks of investing in syndicated mortgages. The witness explained he attended the defendant’s office a few times and talked to Rathore about any potential risks; he was made to feel that Colliers was a safe investment. Witness # 9 Investor #5 A Mandarin-speaking investor and his wife invested in the Collier project. He first saw an ad in a Chinese newspaper, and later attended a presentation at a Cineplex theatre with 100-200 people in attendance. Rathore and Petrozza were both there, and Rathore spoke to the audience about the success of other projects. The witness thought his money was being used for the project.The witness recalled having a lawyer explain the documents via video, but he and his wife felt the lawyer who spoke to them did not represent them because they didn’t pay a fee for his advice. They were mainly focused on the interest rate on his investment and that their name would be on the land title. He admitted he and his wife went through the documents very quickly with little to no time for review. They felt the risk was very low based on what was presented in the theatre regarding successful Fortress projects. They did not see the risk document and their broker did not explain it. The term “risk” never came up. It was never explained by anyone and their 3rd ranking mortgage was not understood. Upon signing the documents, the witness was never told how much Fortress would get paid. Week 3 (Nov 12-14, 2024) Witness #10 FSCO Employee A former Sr Compliance Officer with FSRA. (formerly FSCO) testified his review of Centro's compliance in 2013 did not extend to investor files. He reviewed only hour institutional lender files-no mom and pop SML investor files. He explained that his examination was to ensure Centro was in compliance with the MBLA. His scope was to review the brokerage policies & procedures, not to audit the brokerage. During this examination he met with the principal broker, Ildina Galati. (who is now deceased). The Prosecutor also went over a letter dated April 2013. This letter provided a summary of findings. Galati responded in the letter that Centro/Fortress will establish separate brokerages. (these brokerages became FMP, FFM & FDS). The Defence went over the role of the FSRA employee, and how the brokerage's role was to take reasonable steps to disclose material risks; and to give each lender the proper lender forms in a language that can be understood by the lender. The Defence stated that certain requirements and provisions only came into effect much later after his Centro review. The Defence also clarified that the witness's examination of Centro was not as a result of a complaint, it was a regular compliance review. The witness stated that the existence of policies and procedures was the main purpose of the exam. Witness #11 Former Fortress Employee-EVP Strategy & Development A former Fortress EVP testified his role was to bring in developer clients, underwrite projects, and secure financial institution backing. He said FI's do not rely on opinions of value and was unaware of how much Rathore and Petrozza were paid from SML proceeds. He confirmed the Sky City land was a parking lot in 2013 when he joined Fortress, and remained a parking lot when he left Fortress in 2017. Emails showed internal pressure to obtain higher appraisals to meet investor expectations. The Prosecutor then went over an email trail between the witness, another Fortress employee and Vince Petrozza with regards to appraisals and construction financing. The appraisal provided by one company is listed as $5.9 million. They discuss how they should look at residual value. In another email Petrozza responds to the other Fortress employee, and removes the witness from the email trail and says"Get me an appraisal of $9.5 Million or better!" Upon cross-examination, the Defence went over an offering memorandum. (Note that an offering memorandum is provided to accredited investors in the exempt market.) The Defence went over this document with the witness, and read the risks that were cited. The witness clarified that this was a security offering and that he was not involved in that side of the business. They went over the different types of exits for projects. 1. Completion- project is built, units complete, proceed to pay back SMIs. 2. Refinance 3. Sale- entire project is sold and cash is paid to SMIs. The Defence asked if the witness was involved in the execution or steps made to pay the SMIs? Who was responsible? The witness responded that he believed it was a combination of Fortress, BDMC, and the Fortress affiliated brokers. Witness # 12 Mady Development Executive Mady was the developer who partnered with Fortress for the Collier project in 2012. Mady sought bankruptcy protection in January 2015. Fortress then took the project over from Mady in 2015. The witness was asked whether they were made aware of the commission that Fortress was taking from the investors' principal and the witness confirmed they were aware. Even though they did not receive the full principal they felt the project would still succeed with the condo sales. Week 4 - Jan 27, 2025 Witness # 12 RCMP Forensic Accountant An RCMP forensic accountant described detailed financial analysis of Fortress (eg Sky City, Collier) tracing investor funds, fee distributions, and who benefited financially. The Defence asked the witness if he knew that the offering memorandum was provided to investors? The witness replied he did not. (note that the OMs were only provided to accredited investors, not to the mom & pop investors).

Did you Know? What's an LTV and why does it matter? The loan-to-value (LTV) ratio shows how much money is being borrowed compared to the actual value of the land. The land is supposed to be the safety net for investors: if a project fails, the land can be sold and the loan repaid. A lower LTV means more protection, because the land is worth more than the loan. Typically, lenders will not lend more than about 85% of the land’s value. If the land is overvalued, investors are exposed to much greater risk. In the case of Fortress Real Developments, the land values were inflated, and investors were misled into thinking their money was secure, when it wasn't. For example, in the Collier Centre Project (Barrie, ON) investors lent $16.9 million to the project. They were told the land was worth $21.9 million, which suggested an LTV of about 77% -appearing safe. But in reality, an appraisal showed the land was worth only $7 million. The $21.9 Million figure was a future based evaluation. That meant the true LTV was over 200%. This was far riskier than investors had been led to believe.When the project collapsed, the land sale could not cover the debt. Since investors were also ranked fifth in repayment priority, there was no money left to pay them back . Another supposed advantage to investing in Fortress SMLs was the 8% interest rate. This rate 8% was far more attractive than GIC's, or bonds. What you weren't told, was about returns provided in the mortgage market. Under MBLAA, the following comparative information was required by law to be disclosed to you by FSCO licensed parties. Did you know that the private lenders who lend on first mortgages on commercial properties only lend 65% of their as-is appraised value at 9-12%. Land loans on farmland are done by few private lenders and they loan 50% of their as-is appraised value. Private lenders will provide first mortgages on houses up to 80% at 8% return, and on second mortgages lend up to 85% of as-is appraised value at 10-15% for a one year term. Compare these loan to values and returns, to your 8% return at well over 100% of as-is appraised value. Fortress did not provide as-is values. They provided opinions of value, which are not appraisals. Fortress opinions of value were based on future value. You were equity investors in these projects, which means that you should have received an ownership interest in the project and/or share of profits, as you were unknowingly were taking a lot of risk. Even as an equity investor you would not invest if your investment was much more than 100% of as-is appraised value. Fortress stated in their marketing and legal documentation that their LTVs were based on "as is" values- where in reality the LTVs were based on future values. This misrepresentation was detrimental to your investment, because if something went wrong with the project, there would not be enough assets to repay the investments as the loan was much higher than the value of the land. There are a few lenders who provide soft cost loans to developers by way of a first mortgage at 20-30%, plus fees, and these lenders do not postpone to construction financing. Meaning, if they lend money towards a project, they only do so on the condition that their position in rank cannot be moved or postponed. If they lend as 2nd mortgage, they stay at 2nd without any sneaky clauses that postpone them to 3rd. Do you think that this is a good comparison to the Fortress mortgages you invested in? Your return was 8%. Remember how you were promised 2nd mortgage, but you were moved like a hot potato to 3rd, 4th or even 5th mortgage? A private lender would never, ever, sign-off on such an agreement. The reason the lenders charge these rates and fees is because they know that they can lose money if the land is not rezoned and even if it is, that the developer does not get the necessary presales, that they will lose money. All the benefits went to Fortress. They collected a 35% fee and 50% of the profits. The investors took all of the risk and only were to be paid 8%. This structure was completely unfair to investors. Now you understand why the RCMP obtained its search warrant. Fraud, section 380 of the Criminal Code, includes misrepresenting the value and placing the victim at risk of economic harm.

Vosmi in the News 2019 Victims Fight Back against Regulator and the Law Society of Ontario September 19, 2019 Canadian Fraud News Investors who lost millions in syndicated mortgages call for changes at law society September 13, 2019- CBC News Victims cry foul over Fortress Real rewards June 13, 2019 - Canadian Professional Mag 2022 Ottawa senior says he lost life savings investing with company now facing fraud charges July 6, 2022 CTV News 2021 Investors who lost millions launch petition calling for federal attention on Fortress deals February 17, 2021 2020 Fortress cancels major high-rise project in Winnipeg, leaves investors hanging October 7, 2020 PC Mag Lot that was supposed to be home to SkyCity, Winnipeg's tallest tower, now up for sale Oct 2, 2020 CBC

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

" 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

Darryl Levitt Law Darryl Levitt practises law Ontario and is also qualified as a lawyer in South Africa. His area of expertise is corporate finance, energy, and white collar crime investigations. Darryl has worked on many high-profile assignments including the merger of Petro Canada and Suncor for a value of $55bn, the IPO of First Uranium for $265m, the RTO of Pelawan and concurrent financing of $165m. He has also worked on public interest matters including the recent Air Ethiopia aviation disaster, and a large multinational securities law violations case and whistleblower filings. Prior to starting to his own practice, Darryl was a senior lawyer at two multinational law firms. Darryl has consistently been recognized by his peers and clients by the independent WWL as a leading global practitioner in his area of practise. Darryl Levitt Law Counsel Deloitte Building 400 Applewood Crescent Suite 100 Vaughan ON, L4K 0C3 Darryl@darryllevitt.com Reception: 905-482-8089

Fortress Project Outcomes – Summary Analysis The following analysis is based on records obtained from FAAN Mortgage Administrators , the court-appointed trustee following the RCMP raid of Fortress. These records include information filed with the court and documentation published by FAAN. During the trial, the defence stated that Fortress had many “successful” projects. While some projects did return investor funds in full, a significant number of projects failed. As shown in the tables below, 28 development projects returned only a portion of the invested principal, while 18 projects did not return any principal to investors. Based on the available records, the total investor loss to date is approximately $428 million. In addition, two projects have not yet exited and remain in distress. Investors seeking information specific to their project status or outcome are encouraged to contact FAAN Mortgage Administrators, the trustee overseeing the administration of these projects. Outcome Summary of Fortress SML Projects (post 2018) Projects with No Repayment to SML Investors Projects with Partial Repayment to SML Investors Projects with Full Repayment to SML Investors Projects in Distress The following is a summary in presentation form of the Fortress Projects and review of total funds paid to investors and total losses. Please view this presentation on your PC or iPad for optimal viewing

Ottawa Protest- Parliament Hill, Ottawa Our third protest took place in Ottawa, October 18, 2019. Will the government increase funding to fight White Collar Crime? Many thanks to those who came out to support us!

How to contact us, whether you have a general inquiry, or whether you are an investor. INVESTOR / GENERAL INQUIRIES Please complete your information below and we will get back to you. If you have any project specific questions, please contact FAAN Mortgages . Thank you. Thank you. We will get back to you shortly. Send

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

Class Action Law Suits Lawyers Mitchell Wine, of MSTW Professional Corporation and Margaret Waddell of Sotos joined forces in prosecuting five proposed class actions relating to syndicated mortgage loans (SMLs) promoted by Fortress Real Developments Inc. and Fortress Real Capital Inc. Details of the proposed class actions, as well as statements of claims, and settlements can be found on the Sotos website. (search Fortress). The actions relate to the SMLs registered on five different real estate developments: Collier Centre – (2012 syndicated mortgage loan only) Progress Manors Ten88 Sutton/The Link Harmony Village Lake Simcoe/The Kemp Orchard Calgary – only in respect of the charge registered as Registration No. 141 112 373. CURRENT PROPOSED CLASS ACTIONS PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS There have been 5 partial settlements thus far. Please refer to the Sotos website, (search under cases/Fortress) or the FAAN website for details https://www.faanmortgageadmin.com/fortress/english . Sutton/The Link Settlement BDMC and Ildina Galati Estate FFM, Rosalia Spadafora, and Saul Perlov FMP, Tonino Amandola, Michael Daramola, and Graham McWaters Derek Sorrenti, Grant Morgan, and Sorrenti Law Professional Corporation It is important to understand that a class action certification hearing the initial procedural step where a judge will determine if a lawsuit can proceed as a class action law suit. The judge will not decide the merits of the case, but will decide if the claim has a valid cause of action, a defined class, common issues, a suitable representative, and is the preferred method for resolution. UPCOMING CERTIFICATION HEARING FEB 24-26, 2026 Outstanding claims against Fortress Real Developments and the Appraisers (for Progress Manors/Ten 88 & Harmony Village Lake Simcoe/the Kemp only) will be pursued in an upcoming class action certification hearing from Feb 24-26, 2026. To attend the hearing via zoom, please register here: When : Feb 24, 2026 10:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: MCDOWELL v. FORTRESS REAL CAPITAL INC. et al | CV-16-00560268-00CP Register in advance for this webinar: https://ca01web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_rjWIh5YRQKa45NGD4QFKVA How can I get my money back? Many investors have asked us how they can get their money back. We have carefully looked at various avenues for recovery. Other Class Action Pursuits An investigation team comprised of a lawyer, researcher and a forensic accountant had worked diligently with the help of Rose Ray , to create a report that would be used to highlight potential law suits pertaining to Fortress. A potential Class action lawsuit against Lamb Development Corp was filed, however unfortunately the law firm Groia advised they were unable to pursue the lawsuit further. Archived communications regarding this endeavour can be found here . Another law firm, Kallochlian Myers LLP filed a Statement of Claim in 2020 against Olympia Trust Company for the registered funds investors. However, on June 19, 2023, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has dismissed the appeal of the order dismissing the motion for certification. A copy of the decision is available here . If you are an investor who has approached a law firm regarding a class action law suit against other Fortress related parties not mentioned on our website, please let us know. Q & A Current Proposed Class Action Law Suits & Settlements 1. Why wasn't my project / developer chosen for the class action law suit headed by Mitchell Wine and Sotos? This would likely be due to the fact that the lead plaintiffs invested in the particular projects listed above. 2. Why does it take so long to recover the funds for a class action law suit? We understand this is the question most victims ask. Unfortunately, recovering money through a class action lawsuit is not quick or simple. • Class actions take years to move through the courts. • Defendants often fight every step, which adds delays. • Even if successful, legal costs and fees are deducted before any money is shared. Class actions can hold wrongdoers accountable and sometimes lead to financial settlements, but they are a long, uncertain process with no guarantee of full recovery. 3. I didn't receive my class action law suit settlement payment. Who do I contact? Please contact the Claims Administrator - FAAN Mortgages . They can be reached at 1 (833) 495-3338 or by email at info@faanmortgageadmin.com.