Пожалуйста, просмотрите эту презентацию на своем ПК или iPad для оптимального просмотра 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

Оттавский протест, Наша третья акция протеста состоялась в Оттаве, 18 октября 2019 года. Будет ли правительство увеличивать финансирование для борьбы с преступностью белых воротничков? Большое спасибо тем, кто пришел нас поддержать!

How to contact us, whether you have a general inquiry, or whether you are an investor. ИНВЕСТОР / ОБЩИЕ ВОПРОСЫ Наш процесс регистрации будет доступен в ближайшее время. Пожалуйста, заполните информацию ниже, и мы свяжемся с вами. Спасибо. Спасибо. Мы скоро к тебе вернемся. Отправлять

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

13 мая 2020 г. Update Пожалуйста смотреть the видео below от Роуз Рэй. На сегодняшний день мы получили в общей сложности 14 000 долларов США в виде пожертвований, чтобы помочь финансировать the расследование нашего потенциального группового иска. Эти средства будут переданы администраторами VOSMI инвестору, который вложил 50 000 долларов. Если у вас еще нет внес $100 к это задание, пожалуйста, завершитеэта форма . Вы можете оплатить через кредит card или an передача . Инструкции включены в ссылку предоставил .

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. Коллективные иски Следственная группа состоял of юрист, исследователь и бухгалтер-криминалист усердно работали с помощью Роуз Рэй над созданием отчета, который будет использоваться для освещения потенциальных судебных исков, касающихся Fortress. Был подан потенциальный коллективный иск против Brad J Lamb Realty Inc./Lamb Development Corp, однако, к сожалению, юридическая фирма Groia решила, что они не могут продолжать судебный процесс. Архивные сообщения об этом начинании можно найтиздесь . Если вы являетесь инвестором и обратились в юридическую фирму по поводу группового иска против других сторон, связанных с Fortress, не упомянутых на нашем веб-сайте, сообщите нам об этом. Насколько нам известно, в настоящее время 2 группы юридических фирм ведут коллективные иски, которые могут принести пользу некоторым инвесторам синдицированной ипотеки Fortress RDI. Подробности ниже.

Мы в этом Вместе. Помогите своим вкладом. ВОСМИ полностью администрируется на добровольной основе, с целью информировать инвесторов Крепости о последних событиях в возможных коллективных исках, прояснить вопросы, связанные со статусом проекта, а также просто помочь инвесторам понять, как с ними произошло это фиаско. Затраты, связанные с VOSMI, двойные. Во-первых, это расходы, связанные с запуском веб-сайта и рассылкой новостей по электронной почте (через платформу Wix). Эта стоимость составляет около 700 долларов в год. Вторая стоимость — это исследование, которое было проведено в отношении исков по групповым искам. Чтобы возбудить групповой иск, требуется провести обширное исследование, чтобы проверить, является ли судебный иск жизнеспособным. В 2019 г. В 2019 году анонимный инвестор внес 50 000 долларов США, чтобы начать работу. Работа следственной группы под руководством Дэррил Левитт and его команда , сыграл важную роль в недавнем коллективном иске, возбужденном юридической фирмой Groia & Company против Брэда Лэмба. К сожалению, Groia & Company решила не возбуждать иск против Брэда Лэмба, так как не считала его жизнеспособным. С другой стороны, отчет, созданный следственной группой, также был передан юристам Митчелл Вайн и Маргарет Уодделл у которых есть текущие коллективные иски в работе . Мы просим инвесторов (а также любых реферальных агентов или брокеров) помочь компенсировать наши расходы внося 25 долларов или любую сумму, которую вы можете себе позволить. Просто нажмите кнопку ниже, и вы сможете либо сделать взнос с помощью кредитной карты через Paypal, либо электронным переводом через свой собственный онлайн-банкинг на адрес info@vosmi.ca . Мы ценим вашу поддержку. Ведь мы все в этом вместе. . Способствовать

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.

4 октября 2019 г. Акция протеста Этот протест состоялся в Законодательное собрание Онтарио, Queen's Park, Торонто. Протест занял place, чтобы выделить следующее: Повышение осведомленности общественности о неспособности регулирующих органов Онтарио защитить общественность в отношении синдицированных ипотечных инвестиций (что повлияло на инвесторов по всей Канаде) Предупредите общественность, что они тоже станут жертвами мошенничества, если регулирующие органы радикально не изменят свои процессы, расследования и наказания, приняв активное участие в перехвате преступников, а не реагируя и основываясь на жалобах. Требовать увеличения финансирования полиции для расследования преступлений белых воротничков. Повышайте осведомленность общественности о VOSMI, поощряйте инвесторов выступать и присоединяться к нашей группе Подчеркните, что либералы, прогрессивные консерваторы и НДП не сделали ничего, чтобы продемонстрировать поддержку или защиту 16 000 жертв мошенничества. (14 000 жертв крепости и 1600 жертв уровня 1) Огромное спасибо Рою Лонгу из Партии зеленых, который нашел время, чтобы поговорить с инвесторами о своих опасениях по поводу «белых воротничков», особенно в отношении пожилых людей. )более 80 человек приняли участие в акции протеста в Королевском парке! Так как поблизости находился Эндрю Шеер, мы подошли к его автобусу, прыгая, чтобы высказать свои опасения. We waited более 2 часов встретились с ним, однако он пробрался через черный ход.

Verdict On May 28, 2025, Justice D Moore delivered his guilty verdict on the charge of Fraud to the accused principals of Fortress. Jawad Rathore & Vince Petrozza were found guilty of Fraud over $5000. Read the complete reasoning for the judgement here. We would like to thank the Crown Prosecutors, and the RCMP IMET for their tireless work on this case. The sentencing submission hearing took place on December 3, 2025, and the sentencing hearing is to take place on February 2, 2026. "I find beyond a reasonable doubt that they both intentionally misled investors about the value of their secured interest in order to induce them into investing." Justice D. Moore

Ознакомьтесь с нашими услугами и свяжитесь с нами Услуги 01. Custom Project Unleash your unique vision with our bespoke service, designed to bring your most ambitious ideas to life. We collaborate closely to define project scope, requirements, and deliverables, ensuring a tailored approach from inception to completion. This service is perfect for initiatives that require a one-of-a-kind solution and specialized execution. Experience innovation and receive an outcome precisely matching your distinct needs. Показать еще 02. Personal Solution Planning Discover tailored strategies designed specifically for your individual needs and goals. Our process involves in-depth discussions to fully understand your unique situation and aspirations. We then develop a clear, actionable plan to help you achieve desired outcomes efficiently. Benefit from personalized attention and expert advice crafted just for you. Показать еще 03. Expert Guidance Package Navigate complex challenges with our comprehensive guidance package, designed to provide clarity and direction. We offer expert insights and strategic recommendations based on extensive industry knowledge. This package ensures you have the support needed to make informed decisions and move forward with confidence. Achieve your objectives with a clear roadmap and expert-level support. Показать еще