Sign up for our newsletter! 
Click here.

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 .

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

Trial Summary The following are not official court transcripts, they are observations and summaries of the Prosecution & Defence questions and witness testimonies. The trial summaries with highlights of witness testimonies are listed below. Opening Statements The Prosecution alleges Rathore and Petrozza : Deceived the public by misrepresenting the true land value  Obtained opinions of values and represented them as actual appraisals to the brokers and investors; where the value of the property was substantially less than the Opinion of Value Rathore and Petrozza kept a large portion of the investors’ money for themselves, and investors were not made aware of this. The Defence opening remarks: The advance payments were disclosed to the public The opinions of value were given to the investors Rathore & Petrozza did not act alone, they had office staff. Fortress had law firms like Norton Rose; Gowlings for tax opinions Fortress worked with a well known custodian Olympia Trust to hold the investors’ money Many developments were successful A failed project is not an indicator of fraud. Clients are pleading not guilty of fraud and secret commissions and the defence wants them acquitted of all charges. Week 1 (Oct 28 -Nov 2024) Investor Witness 1 The first witness of the week was a retired female who invested $50,000 in cash, in the Collier project with her husband, and $70,000 with registered funds in Harmony Village Sheppard. She worked in IT but also worked as a real estate agent part-time. She was invited to a Fortress presentation in Barrie for the Collier Centre project. She said that Rathore and other Fortress staff were at the event, and that Rathore and Petrozza both presented at this event. The presentation went over the real estate market, the highlights of the Collier development, and as well as information on the builder, Mady, who was well known and reputable. Guests were told how the process worked with an SML, that it was low risk, the Loan to Value ratio “LTV”, the interest of 8%, possible profit sharing at the end, and the investment being a 2 year term. The Prosecution showed the presentation to the court on a large screen where it read “The Investors get their money before developers get theirs”. Once her Collier investment was finalized, she recalled receiving interest payments, and then decided to invest in a second project, Harmony Village. She only received interest payments for Collier until January 2015. Eventually, she was notified that the Collier project went into receivership. She never received any further interest, and did not receive any of her principal back. It is important to note here that the Collier Project still, to this day remains an empty lot. (Harmony Village went into receivership and the investors of that project 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. The Defence focused on the aspect that the witness did not pay attention to what she was signing. 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. Principal Broker FDS The following day, the witness was the Principal Broker for the brokerage FDS. His role was to oversee compliance at FDS. He was also responsible for the brokers, reviewing documentation, training, verifying and validating information. Petrozza’s role as COO of Fortress was to provide the brokerages (FDS, FMP, FFM) with the paperwork and documents associated with the SML, and he would also do compliance videos for brokers. Rathore would deal with the project/development side of things. The Prosecution then played a webinar regarding the Sky City project in Winnipeg. Jawad presented first, and walked through all of the attributes about the project, the location, how the media has covered this project, etc. Petrozza takes his turn and goes over the SML portion. He reviews the Project Fact Sheet. The evaluation is provided by Global Legacy, with a $18 million evaluation, and a face value up to $35 million. The LTV is 85% with 8% annual interest, paid monthly. He goes over the risk factors- (a non-liquid investment, funds are locked in for the term, real estate has its own risks, delays and overruns). He then talks about the SML money being used for soft costs, marketing, sales centre. He adds that they never go over the property value, and stresses that the investment is secured against the land. He says that it is important for the broker to go over disclosures with investors, and advises the brokers not to scare the investors, but to do a good job of going through the disclosures, risks and that it’s important to get legal advice. The Prosecution then went through an email to Fortress staff regarding an appraisal. The email is dated August 2013. The appraisal for Sky City is listed as $5.9 million. He asked the witness if this appraisal was disclosed to clients, and the witness replied "no". The prosecution asked the witness if he had known of the actual appraisal would that have changed his mind? The witness replied that 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. The prosecution then brought up the regulator, FSCO, and showed the court an email from the witness to Rathore, Petrozza, Ildina Galati (former principal broker of Centro/BDMC), and other staff. The email pertains to FSCO’s market & conduct compliance. The witness explains that FSCO wants to know who is getting paid and by whom. He suggests to the group that he make a presentation to FSCO. Petrozza responds that he doesn’t know if he would volunteer to do a presentation. The witness responds to Petrozza that he wants the regulator to understand what they are doing and that it is crystal clear. He also added 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 was provided to them by Centro (BDMC) and Fortress. This included the project specs, evaluation, LTV, SML advantages, etc. Investor Witness 2 On Wednesday, the Prosecution called another female investor as a witness. In 2012 she invested $80,000 in Collier. She invested in several other Fortress projects, and this investment was 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 also went through the investor’s package that she signed, highlighting the fine print which indicated that Fortress would get paid prior to project completion and after with profits. The witness says yes she signed but it wasn't made clear to her. The defence was focussed on all the disclosures she signed and pressed that the broker had a duty to explain the risks to her. Next the Prosecution called another FDS employee, who was the President of the brokerage. He was asked if he knew how Rathore and Petrozza were paid, and the witness understood that Fortress received 50/50 commission at the end of the project with the developer they partnered with. The prosecution asked the witness whether he remembered the kind of vehicles Rathore and Petrozza drove? The Defence objected- they felt it was not relevant, however the judge allowed the question. The witness replied that he recalled an Aston Martin, a Ferrari California, a Porsche Panerama, and a Porsche GT3. The Prosecution showed the witness an appraisal. This was the first time he saw it, and said it was not given to him nor the investors. Fortress and Centro had supplied him with the evaluation for Collier, which was over $21 Million. However, in reality, the actual appraisal was only $7.5 million. The defense is focused on the fact that Fortress was a high risk investment. All commissions and risks were disclosed. All investors read the disclosures and signed it regardless if they remember it or not. The mortgage agents selling the investments went through the risks. They signed off suitability of the investments. All investors were given independent legal advice. Summary- . Witness was not made aware of the appraisal. Defense was attempting to demonstrate that the brokers and agents were responsible to make the investors aware of the risks, they were responsible to ensure investors were suitable clients for the SML investments and that the Fortress was a high risk investment. FDS President Cushman & Wakefield Opinion of Value The last witness of the week was a Sr VP of Cushman & Wakefield. He was approached in 2012 by Petrozza, who is his cousin, for an Opinion of Value for the Collier project. The witness has his masters in Economics. The witness explained to the prosecution that the Opinion of Value he provided to Fortress was meant for internal purposes only. It was not meant to be used as an actual appraisal, and not meant to be used in any promotional material to the general public. Once he learned this figure was used in brochures to the public, 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? 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 Investor Witness 3 The first witness of the week was a woman who invested in Sky City and several other projects. 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 prosecution went through her documentation. The investor said she was told it was a low risk investment. The defence went through the investor’s package that she signed, highlighting all the fine print which indicates that Fortress will get paid prior to project completion and after with profits. The witness replied yes she signed, but it was not made clear to her. The witness faulted herself for not understanding what she was signing, calling herself “stupid”. The Defence maintained the onus was on the investor, as she signed the documents and had the opportunity to ask questions. Opinions of Value Global Legacy The next witness was a managing partner of Global Legacy. Legacy provides Opinions of Value for clients like Fortress. The witness stated to the prosecution that he is not accredited to provide appraisals, however he does have an MBA, lots of education in business, and real estate, etc. The witness 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. It was his job to evaluate the information provided by Fortress. He expected it would be used internally, not 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. Investor Witness 4 The 3rd witness of the week was a male investor who invested $100,000 in Harmony and $80,000 in Colliers. In total he invested in 8 projects, totalling $900,000 in Fortress SMLs. This witness told the prosecution that he had attended a total of 3 sales presentations. Both Rathore and Patrozza spoke in all 3 presentations and then they spoke to people individually. Moreover, the witness spoke directly to the principals over the phone. The witness felt 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 lawyer 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. Investor Witness 5 The last witness of the week was an investor who required an interpreter in Mandarin. He 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, where Rathore and Petrozza were in attendance. He recalled that Rathore spoke to the audience, where 100-200 people were in attendance. Rathore spoke 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 review. They felt the risk was very low based on what was presented in the theatre about 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. Their 3rd ranking mortgage was not understood. Upon signing the investors never understood how and what Fortress would get paid. They never received the letter from the lawyers office about the Opinion of Value for $ 21.8 million. The investor was impressed by the presentation, and did not understand or read the documents. VOSMI's reaction to the Defence statements and questioning:It is apparent that strategy of the Defence is to distance Fortress from the SML portion of the business, putting the onus on the brokers that were responsible to disclose the risks, to know their client, and for the investors to have read all of the disclosures of risks prior to signing. Keep in mind that Petrozza is COO of Fortress, but was also a licensed broker for Centro brokerage. The Prosecution is clearly demonstrating that the investors, and even the FDS brokerage President and Principal Broker were unaware of upfront payment Fortress took from the SML’s, a whopping 35%. The Prosecution also shows a pattern where Fortress failed to disclose the actual appraisal values to the brokers and to the investors. Both evaluators maintained their Opinions of Value were for internal purposes only, and not to be shared to the public. Week 3 (Nov 12-14, 2024) FSCO Employee The first witness was a FSRA (Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario) who at the time was a Sr Compliance Officer with FSRA. In 2013 he was responsible for completing examinations on Fortress' brokerage, Centro. (later known as BDMC). The 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 asked if they questioned whether the brokerage took steps to verify suitability or any risks or conflicts of interest disclosed? The witness responded that Galati stated they didn't verify. The Prosecutor asked if the witness went back behind the scenes to verify if a conflict of interest existed? The witness stated no.The FSRA witness was asked how many files did he review during the examination? He responded that he reviewed only 4 files. The files he looked at included lenders who were banks, trust companies; ie institutional lender files, not files of mom & pop investors (ie SML investors). The Prosecutor also went over a letter dated April 2013. This letter provided a summary of findings. Galati responds that they 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 examination he did with 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. Fortress Employee EVP Strategy & Dev The witness was the EVP of Strategy & Development for Fortress . He began working with Fortress in the Spring of 2013. He previously worked at MCAP Financial, and took an offer from Fortress. Margani was a licensed mortgage agent at the time. His job at Fortress entailed the following : 1. Bring in Developer clients 2. Underwrite the fundamentals of projects they were bringing to establish feasibility 3. Finding debt capital acquisition from Financial Institutions, Trust Companies etc.(ie finding financial help from FI's for construction financing ) The witness was asked if these lenders would work off opinions of value? Witness stated no. Prosecutor asked witness if he knew what Fortress did and how they got paid? The witness stated that Fortress was a development company, and that they were providing consultations for the development of projects. Part of the services was to facilitate equity for projects, and they would have to the affiliate brokerages to find assets. The Prosecutor asked if this was the mom & pop investors? The witness responded yes. The Prosecutor asked the witness if he knew how much money Rathore & Petrozza received from the SML investors. The witness responded that this was not in his area. He stated that the responsibility of the money that was coming from investors was with the brokers. He was then asked about the marketing- ie campaigns, videos, etc. Who created those? The witness responded that it was the marking department, led by Jawad Rathore. The Prosecutor asked the witness what was the land like for Sky City in Winnipeg when he joined Fortress in 2013? The witness replied it was a parking lot. And then what was it when he left Fortress in 2017? The witness responded that it was still a parking lot. 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!" (Note that in the end, they chose an appraisal which was actually an opinion of value, and that figure was $11 million. This was the value that was given to the Syndicate Mortgage investors and presented as the value in the loan to value ratios for the project.) 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. The Defence went over the role of the witness at Fortress. The witness said his role was to expand the FI (Financial institution) base. 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. Mady Development Exec The last witness of the week was an executive from Mady Development . 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 RCMP Forensic Accountant The last witness of the trial testified. He is the forensic accountant/RCMP who analyzed the Fortress financials. He has been an RCMP officer for 12 years, and prior to that was a professional accountant for a multi-national accounting firm doing forensic accounting. The witness created a report on Fortress financials and developed a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet focusses on 4 Fortress projects. The Prosecutor reviewed Sky City & Collier. The document contained data from various sources - search warrant, production orders, and bank documents. The spreadsheet included tranches which are funds syndicate mortgage investors made to projects. He reviewed where the money went from the tranches, to bank accounts. The spreadsheet broke down the amounts raised for each project, where the fees went and who benefited from them. The Defence asked the witness if he knew that the offering memorandum was provided to investors? The witness replied he did not. Prosecution confirmed with witness that the offering memorandums were provided to some investors. (note that the OMs were only provided to accredited investors, not to the mom & pop investors).

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

Class Action Law Suits Current Proposed Class Action Law Suits & Settlements 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. Five proposed class actions pertain to the following 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. Details of the proposed class actions, as well as statements of claims, and settlements can be found on the Sotos website. (search Fortress). Partial Settlements There have been 5 settlements thus far. Please refer to the Sotos website, or the FAAN website for details. https://www.faanmortgageadmin.com/fortress/english 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. 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 had 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 . While class actions are designed to give many people a chance to seek justice together, they are also very long, complex, and costly. 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. Can we sue the co-founders of Fortress Real Developments? In fraud cases like this, much of the money is often hidden or moved offshore, making recovery extremely difficult. time consuming and expensive. 4. 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.

" 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

Please complete the following fields to join our mailing list in order to receive updates and newsletters. Send Thanks! Message sent. Please check your junk mail to ensure you do not miss our emails.

We are in this Together. Help by Contributing. VOSMI is completely administered on a volunteer basis, with the goal to inform the Fortress investors of the latest developments in possible class action law suits, to clarify questions related to project status, and also simply to help investors understand how this fiasco happened to them. The costs related to VOSMI are two-fold. First, there are costs associated with running the website and email newsletters (via Wix platform). This cost is approximately $700 per year. The second cost is the research that has been undertaken with regards to Class Action Law suits. In order to launch a Class Action Law suit, an intense amount of research is required to review whether a law suit is viable. In 2019, an anonymous investor contributed $50,000 in 2019 in order to start the work. A further contribution of $10,000 was paid by investor Rose Ray to help cover legal and other costs. The work of the investigative team led by Darryl Levitt and his team , was instrumental in the recent class action law suit launched by Groia & Company law firm against Brad Lamb. Unfortunately, Groia & Company decided to not to pursue the law suit against Brad Lamb as they did not feel it was viable. On the other hand, the report created by the investigative team has also been shared with lawyers Mitchell Wine and Margaret Waddell who have current class action law suits in the works . We are asking the investors (and also any referral agents or brokers) to help compensate for our costs by contributing $25 or whichever amount you can afford. Simply click the button below, and you can either make the contribution with your credit card via Paypal, or an e-transfer via your own online banking to info@vosmi.ca . We appreciate your support. After all, we are all in this together. Contribute

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!

VOSMI is a group of investors of Syndicate Mortgages through Fortress Real Developments Inc. We are sharing our stories, and joining together so that our voices can be heard. Are YOU a VOSMI? You're not alone. We were promised: 8% fixed interest with with principal secured Investment's backed by the security of the physical property much like a bank with a regular mortgage Repayment of principal at end of mortgage term RRSP, TFSA, LIRA eligible Safe & Low Risk Investment What we discovered: The Investment was indeed high risk The Current "as is" value was Grossly inflated The Loan to Value Ratio exceeded 100% up to over 300%. Read more here . Failed projects (eg. Collier, Harmony,) resulted in no funds remaining to repay the syndicate investors (ie VOSMIS) The independent legal advice was paid for by Fortress RDI Undisclosed commission fees of 35%, were deducted from investor's principal 8% fees were deducted from the investor's principal Questions about your particular project and investment with Fortress? Please contact FAAN Mortgage Administrators . They were appointed by the courts as trustee over all of the Fortress projects. Linda "I was ashamed that I was duped into doing this investment - I thought that I was smarter than that. This just proves how we were conned." Andrew “The way it was sold to me – and I think everybody – is... you’d be a fool to not want to invest; it was so lucrative. This was a no-brainer. You were investing on real properties and developments. Back then, there was a big condo boom, especially in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)” you are not alone Thousands were affected. Together, we stand stronger you are not to blame The responsibility lies with those who orchestrated the fraud. Justice takes time The legal process can seem slow and frustrating, but every step brings the truth forward. your feelings are valid Anger, grief and frustration are natural. Healing takes time. Your feelings are valid. You are not alone. We created a word cloud with our investors emotions and reactions as they navigate through this emotional and financial journey. Do these emotions and thoughts resonate with you? About VOSMI is a non-profit organization formed by victims of the largest mortgage investment fraud in Canada's history. We are the individuals directly impacted by the Fortress Real Developments Inc syndicated mortgage fraud, coming together to share resources, raise awareness, and support one another. Are you a victim? You are not alone. Our group was first formed on Facebook in 2018 by a victim of the Fortress fraud who felt she had to connect with other Fortress investors. Slowly, the group grew to over 800 members, with hundreds of additional subscribers on our website. We hope this website provides victims and their families with some resources, information, and support. Helpful Resources Join our private VOSMI group! Sign up for our Newsletter! Helpful victim resources from these sites: CRVC (Canadian Resource for Victims of Crime ) Navigating the Justice System Helping Victims of Fraud Recover The Serious Fraud Office Ontario-Victim Resources “There’s this unfair sense from others who hear these stories that these people should’ve known better, and that’s unfortunate because every one of us in this day and age is susceptible.” Vanessa Iafolla, Anti-Fraud Intelligence Consultant. ‘The forgotten impact’: Helping victims of financial fraud deal with emotional distress CTV News Sep 6, 2025- Pat Tenney

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