加入我们的通讯邮件列表！ 
点击这里.

Mitchell Wine & Margaret Waddell 法律团队 关于法律团队 点击这里 阅读 Mitchell Wine 的简历。 点击这里 到 阅读 Margaret 沃德尔的简历。 集体诉讼 这些行动涉及在五个不同的 Fortress 房地产开发项目中注册的 SML： Collier Center – 安大略省巴里（仅就原始贷款而言） Progress Manors Ten88——安大略省多伦多 Sutton/The Link——安大略省伯灵顿 Harmony Village Lake Simcoe/The Kemp – 安大略省巴里 果园卡尔加里 - 卡尔加里，AB 部分定居点 于 2023 年 1 月 13 日获得 Perrell 法官批准。 更多详细信息，包括索赔声明和联系信息，请访问 Waddell Phillips 网站 .

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).

2020 年 3 月 11 日 观看 Rose Ray 的视频，了解我们投资者的更新和要求。 根据罗斯的视频，附在右下方，是信 您可以在发送给 FAAN 抵押贷款的电子邮件中使用，请求与您的文件相关的文件 pertaining 法律意见。 请确保你 在发送到FAAN之前 签名 您的电子邮件的主题行可以是： 索取法律意见文件 通过电子邮件发送 letter 到 FAAN i nfo@faanmortgageadmin.com , 用 a copy (cc) 到 roseray@bell.net 谢谢你！ Letter to FAAN Requesting Docs.docx

你可知道？ 还记得 您听说银团抵押贷款投资的那一天吗？当您在 Syndicated Mortgage Investments 上被卖出时（除了被告知这是一项安全的投资），这是基于 8% 是一个很好的回报，因为它比您在你的投资. 8% 优于股票、GIC 的 或债券。你没有被告知的是抵押贷款市场提供的回报。根据 MBLAA，法律要求 FSCO 许可方向您披露以下比较信息。为什么没有透露给你？ 您知道吗，以商业地产的第一抵押贷款进行贷款的私人贷方仅以 9-12% 的利率提供其评估价值的 65%。农田土地贷款由少数私人贷方提供，他们贷款 50% 的评估价值。 私人贷方将以 8% 的回报率提供高达 80% 的房屋首次抵押贷款，并以 10-15% 的利率提供高达评估价值 85% 的二次抵押贷款，期限为一年。 将这些贷款与价值和回报进行比较，以 well 超过 100% 的评估价值的 8% 回报。 Fortress 没有提供原样值。他们提供了有价值的意见，而不是评估。 Fortress 的价值意见基于 future 值。 你在这些项目中是 股权投资者 ，这意味着你应该获得项目的所有权权益和/或利润份额，因为你承担了很大的风险.即使作为股权投资者，如果您的投资远远超过评估价值的 100%，您也不会投资。 有一些贷方通过首次抵押贷款向开发商提供软成本贷款 at 20-30%，加上费用，和 这些贷款人不会推迟建设融资。 意思是，如果他们向项目借钱，他们只会在条件下这样做他们的排名位置不能移动或推迟。如果他们作为第二抵押贷款出借，他们会留在第二抵押贷款而没有任何偷偷摸摸的条款将他们推迟到第三抵押贷款。 你认为这与你投资的 Fortress 抵押贷款相比很好吗？_cc781905-5cde- 3194-bb3b-136bad5cf58d_你的回报是 8%. 还记得你是如何承诺第二抵押贷款的，但是你像一个热 potato 一样被转移到第三、第四抵押贷款吗？ private lender 永远不会签署这样的协议。 贷方收取这些费用的原因 知道如果土地不重新分区，他们可能会赔钱，即使是，开发商没有获得必要的预售，他们也会赔钱。 所有的好处都给了堡垒。他们收取 35% 的费用和 50% 的利润。投资者承担了所有风险，只得到 8% 的报酬。这种结构对投资者完全不公平。 现在你明白为什么加拿大皇家骑警会获得搜查令了吧。欺诈是《刑法》第 380 条，包括歪曲价值和使受害人面临经济损失的风险。 你认为《刑法》的这一部分适用于堡垒对你所做的事情吗？

我们一起做的。通过贡献来帮助。 VOSMI 完全在自愿的基础上进行管理，目的是让 Fortress 投资者了解可能的集体诉讼的最新进展，澄清与项目状态相关的问题，同时也只是帮助投资者了解这场惨败是如何发生在他们身上的。 与 VOSMI 相关的成本是两倍。首先，运行网站和电子邮件通讯（通过 Wix 平台）会产生相关费用。这笔费用约为每年 700 美元。 第二项成本是针对集体诉讼诉讼进行的研究。 为了发起集体诉讼，需要进行大量研究以审查诉讼是否可行。 2019年 an 匿名投资者在 2019 年捐助了 50,000 美元以启动这项工作。 投资者 Rose Ray 进一步捐助了 10,000 美元，以帮助支付法律和其他费用。 领导的调查组工作 达里尔·莱维特 and 他的队伍 , 在最近由 Groia & Company 律师事务所针对 Brad Lamb 发起的集体诉讼中发挥了重要作用。不幸的是，Groia & Company 决定不对 Brad Lamb 提起诉讼，因为他们认为这不可行。另一方面，调查组制作的报告也已分享给律师 米切尔·怀恩和玛格丽特·沃德尔 谁有当前的集体诉讼诉讼 . 我们要求投资者（以及任何推荐代理人或经纪人）帮助补偿 我们的成本 通过贡献 25 美元或任何你能负担得起的金额。 只需单击下面的按钮，您就可以通过 Paypal 使用您的信用卡进行捐款，或者通过您自己的网上银行向 info@vosmi.ca 进行电子转账。 感谢您的支持。毕竟，我们都在一起。 。 贡献

新闻中的 VOSMI 2019 受害者反击监管机构和安大略省律师协会 2019 年 9 月 19 日加拿大欺诈新闻 在银团抵押贷款中损失数百万美元的投资者呼吁改变法律协会 2019 年 9 月 13 日- CBC 新闻 受害者对真正的堡垒奖励大喊大叫 2019 年 6 月 13 日 2022年 渥太华老人说他投资公司现在面临欺诈指控，失去了毕生积蓄 2022 年 7 月 6 日中视新闻 2021年 损失数百万美元的投资者发起请愿，呼吁联邦政府关注 Fortress 交易 2021 年 2 月 17 日 2020 Fortress 取消了温尼伯的主要高层项目，让投资者悬而未决 2020 年 10 月 7 日 PC 杂志 原本应该是温尼伯最高塔 SkyCity 所在地的地块现在正在出售 2020 年 10 月 2 日

我们的大多数成员在投资 Fortress Syndicated Mortgages 之前都接受过“独立法律咨询”。我们对 154 位投资者进行了调查。这些是调查结果。 ILA Member Survey Results.pdf

FORTRESS丰泽 新闻资讯 2022年 Fortress Real Developments 创始人被控与银团抵押贷款调查有关的欺诈行为 2022 年 6 月 22 日 - 金融邮报 Fortress 创始人被控欺诈 2022 年 6 月 22 日-多伦多之星 Fortress 创始人被控参与抵押贷款投资计划 2022 年 6 月 22 日 - 奥瑞拉事务 渥太华老人说他投资公司现在面临欺诈指控，失去了毕生积蓄 2022 年 7 月 6 日 - CTV 新闻 2021年 陷入困境的开发商 Fortress 前高管涉足新房地产公司 2021 年 9 月 13 日 2020 FSRA 对 Fortress Real Development Inc. 处以 250,000 美元的行政处罚 2020 年 9 月 19 日 计划网络系列照亮所谓的 Fortress Real 骗局 2020年12月29日-加拿大房地产杂志 2019 受害者对真正的堡垒奖励大喊大叫 2019 年 6 月 13 日抵押贷款经纪人新闻 73岁的投资者没有退休 2019 年 6 月 11 日抵押贷款经纪人新闻 '我仍然感到羞耻';投资者毕生积蓄悬而未决 2019 年 1 月 11 日，今日巴里 2018 贷方没收 13 个房地产项目 2018 年 10 月 25 日环球邮报 作为联合抵押贷款欺诈的一部分，加拿大皇家骑警突袭了 GTA 的 6 个地点 2018 年 4 月 13 日 加拿大警方在抵押贷款欺诈调查中搜查 Fortress 办公室：消息来源 2018 年 4 月 3 日路透社 受托人在加拿大皇家骑警突袭后接管 Fortress 经纪人 2018 年 4 月 20 日环球邮报 堡垒投资者可能面临“重大损失” 2018 年 6 月 24 日 环球邮报 RCMP 辛迪加中心的财产价值膨胀指控 抵押贷款欺诈调查 2018 年 7 月 19 日 加拿大皇家骑警称，堡垒在土地估价方面误导了投资者 2018 年 10 月 21 日 环球邮报 加拿大皇家骑警指控阻碍堡垒欺诈调查 2018 年 10 月 23 日 堡垒的陷落里面 2018 年 12 月 14 日环球邮报 2017年 房地产开发商试图让批评者闭嘴的努力是如何失败的 2017 年 1 月 19 日 2016年 银团抵押贷款的高风险世界 2016 年 4 月 29 日星报 银团抵押贷款的“安全”世界到底有多安全？ 2016 年 4 月 4 日，MacLean's

达里尔莱维特法 Darryl Levitt 在安大略省执业，同时在南非拥有律师资格。 他的专长领域是公司金融、能源和白领犯罪调查。 Darryl 参与过许多备受瞩目的项目，包括价值 550 亿美元的加拿大石油公司和 Suncor 的合并、First Uranium 的 2.65 亿美元首次公开募股、Pelawan 的 RTO 以及 1.65 亿美元的并行融资。 他还处理过公共利益事务，包括最近的埃塞俄比亚航空空难，以及一起大型跨国证券法违规案件和举报人备案。 在开始自己的执业之前，Darryl 是两家跨国律师事务所的高级律师。 Darryl 一直被独立的 WWL 认可为同行和客户在其执业领域的领先全球从业者。 达里尔莱维特法 法律顾问 德勤大厦 400 阿普尔伍德新月套房 100 旺市 打开，L4K 0C3 Darryl@darryllevitt.com 接待处：905-482-8089

渥太华抗议， 我们的第三次抗议 发生在渥太华， 2019年10月18日._cc781905-5cde-3194-bb3b-136bad_5cf58d 政府会增加 funding来打击白领犯罪吗？非常感谢那些出来支持我们的人！

即将推出！过一会再来检查。

An animated & explanatory timeline of events describing the Fortress Real Development Syndicated Mortgage Investment Fraud charges & the failures of the regulators, and how VOSMI was created. 请在电脑或平板电脑上观看，而不是在手机上观看以获得最佳观看效果。