加入我们的通讯邮件列表！ 
点击这里.

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？

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 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

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