加入我们的通讯邮件列表！ 
点击这里.

2020 年 4 月 1 日 观看下方 Rose Ray 关于潜在集体诉讼进展的最新更新。 此外，如果您能够资助与诉讼相关的调查和研究（诉讼是否可行），请完成此形式 .您可以通过信用卡付款（链接将带您转至 Paypal），或者您可以在完成表格后通过电子转帐至 info@vosmi.ca 。 谢谢你！

请填写以下字段以加入我们的邮件列表，以便接收更新和时事通讯。 发送 谢谢！消息已发送。请检查您的垃圾邮件，以确保您不会错过我们的电子邮件。

请稍等片刻，让表格加载到屏幕上。

2020 年 5 月 13 日 Update 请 观看 视频 below 来自 Rose Ray。 迄今为止，我们总共收到了 14,000 美元的捐款，以帮助资助 the 调查 我们潜在的集体诉讼。这些资金将由 VOSMI 的管理员预付给支付 50,000 美元的投资者。 如果你还没有 贡献了 $100 向 这个努力，请完成这种形式 .您可以通过 支付 信用 card 或 an 转移 . link 中包含的说明 假如 .

These are basic questions & answers for investors and the public regarding the VOSMI. 常问问题 什么是 VOSMI？ 银团抵押贷款投资的受害者. 什么是银团抵押贷款？ 银团抵押贷款是一群私下借钱给借款人以资助房地产开发的个人，例如 住宅公寓楼。_cc781905-5cde-3194-bb3b -136bad5cf58d_ 我是 Fortress Real Development SMIs 的投资者。 What 我能做什么？ 加入我们的小组，这样您就可以在项目 小组讨论中保持 updated_更新。您将需要填写 a 加入小组之前的调查问卷. 一旦我们确认您是投资者，您就可以登录会员门户。 我可以加入你的group 如果我没有投资Fortress RDI吗？ 我们的团队致力于投资 Fortress Real Development Investments 的个人。您可以在 Twitter 和 keep checking 我们的主要网站上关注我们的新更新和 VOSMI 故事。

请稍等片刻以加载表格...

2020 年 2 月 3 日 观看 Rose Ray 关于我们潜在的集体诉讼的最新消息。

Exploring a Class Action Law Suit for Fortress Investors 调查组和更新集体诉讼的研究 关于针对 Fortress 银团抵押贷款投资者的集体诉讼诉讼，已经进行了大量研究。调查组由以下专业人员组成： • Darryl Levitt（律师； 达里尔莱维特法 ) • Dave Oswald（法务会计师， 法医归还 ) • Bruce Livesey（私家侦探； i20 研究公司 .) 联系方式：Rose Ray，电邮：info@roseray.ca 或 705-795-9324 玫瑰雷的更新 2022 年 6 月 6 日 关于 Brad Lamb 集体诉讼的更新。 我想让大家快速了解我们过去 2 年一直在努力的集体诉讼的状态。 如您所知，大约一年前，一家名为 Groia 的律师事务所就针对 Brad Lamb 的集体诉讼提交了索赔声明。不幸的是，Groia 无法继续诉讼，因为他们找不到资助者来承诺资助诉讼。得知这个消息后，我和Corinne立即联系了另一家律师事务所，希望他们能接手这起诉讼。不幸的是，在仔细审查了文件和信息之后，他们也拒绝了。至此，双方均无法提起诉讼。所有律师都同意欺诈已经发生，没有人对此提出异议。问题是他们在法律上是否有足够的证据证明布拉德兰姆知道投资者被误导以及他的直接责任是什么，不幸的是，我们没有足够的证据。尽管我们提供了数百份文件、视频等，但我们的案子胜诉还没有足够的把握。这意味着风险和成本对于资助者和律师事务所来说都太高了。请记住，如果一家律师事务所败诉，他们必须支付另一家律师事务所的所有费用，我们正在谈论此类案件的数百万美元。 这不是我们想要传达给你的消息。我们投入了无数时间来寻求将资金返还给投资者的方法。但是，我们已经用尽了集体诉讼的所有途径。感谢所有愿意提供文件等帮助的人。 为所有已完成的工作提供初始资金的投资者仍然额外获得 18,100 美元。对于所有为报销做出贡献的人——谢谢。不幸的是，更多的投资者没有做出贡献，因为这位投资者冒着巨大的风险试图为我们所有人寻求正义，如果所有人都做出贡献，那将是一个名义上的数额。我们收到的消息无疑是对这位投资者的额外打击。如果你们中的任何人没有捐款，并且愿意帮助减轻该投资者的财务负担，您可以发送电子转账至 info@vosmi.ca .任何金额将不胜感激。 ($20-$100)。接受其他付款安排，例如支票或 PayPal。 2021 年 4 月 22 日 与 Groia & Company 律师事务所和 Mitchell Wine & Margaret Waddell 团队牵头的诉讼有关的最新集体诉讼公告令人兴奋。由 Darryl Levitt 领导的调查小组一直非常勤奋地帮助我们。 如果不是调查团队的努力以及一位投资者最初捐助的 50,000 美元，Brad Lamb 的诉讼就不可能发生。 去年，我们向投资者传达了我们捐助 100 美元来回报这位投资者的正确做法。虽然你们中的一些人做出了贡献，但许多人还没有这样做。 迄今为止，我们已偿还该投资者 14,000 美元，其余未偿还。此后，罗斯又自掏腰包支付了 10,000 美元，以进一步支付法律和研究费用，这可能会使 Fortress Investors 受益。要知道 Rose 在 Fortress 上花费了数小时，这影响了她专注于赚取收入的能力。 我们相信您理解并感谢 VOSMI 团队也进行了数小时的志愿研究，希望您感谢我们为帮助该小组所做的努力。 如果你愿意 想要帮助支付未结余额，请发送电子转账至 info@vosmi.ca 。谢谢。 日期为 2021 年 4 月 12 日的视频 有关律师事务所 Groia & Company 的视频。点击这里 在此处观看视频 &，阅读有关 BRAD J. LAMB REALTY INC.、BRAD J. LAMB 和 LAMB DEV 的索赔声明。请确保您已阅读索赔声明，以了解您的项目是否包含在内。 关于律师 Mitchell Wine 和 Margaret Waddell 的视频。 点击这里 观看视频。请参阅此页面，了解有关以下项目的集体诉讼和索赔声明的更多信息：The Orchard, Progress Manors (Ten 88)；萨顿；矿工；和谐西姆科。 日期为 2020 年 5 月 17 日的视频。 点击这里 查看视频。 摘要：Rose 提供的资金更新。迄今为止，投资者已捐助了大约 14,000 美元。如果 日期为 2020 年 4 月 1 日的视频。 点击这里 查看视频。 摘要：确定了主要缔约方； Fortress，项目业主/公司/主要人员；审计师、受托人、开发商、评估师和评估师、代理人、经纪人和律师事务所。第一个 interest 的两个项目最初追求：Sky City & Colliers。我 已编制调查报告；调查小组正在与律师事务所和诉讼资助者进行讨论。 日期为 2020 年 3 月 11 日的视频。 点击这里 查看视频。 调查工作正在进行中。 Rose 要求投资者写信给 FAAN（视频中有详细说明） （注意：不再需要这个问题） 视频日期为 2020 年 2 月 3 日。 点击这里 查看视频。 摘要：提醒投资者保存与投资相关的文件，以防团队需要文件。本票持有人联系 Rose，他们将与 SML 投资者分开处理；以及有意或无意地从一个项目“转移”到另一个项目的投资者。对于上段所列的项目，也将不胜感激宣传材料、活动录音。 视频日期为 2019 年 11 月 29 日 一位匿名投资者捐助了 50,000 美元来资助这项调查，以帮助将研究提升到一个新的水平。我们要求 Fortress 投资者捐助 100 美元，以帮助偿还投资者的慷慨捐助。 点击这里 观看视频. 点击这里 阅读 Darryl Levitt 致投资者的信。 注意：捐款表格已更新 - 请参阅 2021 年 4 月 22 日更新。

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.

News stories related to Syndicated Mortgage Investments, Fortress Real Developments, and the Regulators of Ontario who failed the investors. 在新闻中 Fortress in the News Regulators in the News 2017 年 11 月 30 日 2018 年 12 月 17 日 VOSMI in the News "Fortress Real Developments co-founders found guilty of fraud" - Globe & Mail Feb 2, 1018 Feb 2, 1018

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