Class Action Lawsuit Against Platinum Equities

Links in the News:

Sept 15 2012: Platinum Equities faces ASC hearing -Calgary Herald

Sept 14 2012: Alberta Securities Commission alleges illegal distributions, prohibited representations and unfair practices in sales of securities by Platinum Equities Inc. - ASC site

Sept 14 2012: Calgary firm raised $58-million while misrepresenting facts to investors: regulatorThe Globe and Mail

Sept 14 2012: Alberta regulator accuses real-estate syndicator of illegal distributionsCanadian Business

Sept 14 2012: ASC alleges illegal distributions, prohibited representations and unfair practices in sales of securities by Platinum Equities Inc. – Sacramento Bee

Sept 12 2012Alberta Securities Commission – Notice of Hearing on Platinum EquitiesAlberta Securities Commission

Sept 10 2012:Class-action lawsuit launched against Calgary company - CBC

Sept 10 2012:INVESTORS MEET OVER CLAIMS OF BEING MISLEAD IN $160M DEAL – Sun News

Sept 9 2012:Suit alleges building-management firm took at least $160 million from nearly 2,200 people - The Province

Key Dates:

Sept 12 2012: Alberta Securities Commission alleges illegal distributions, prohibited representations and unfair practices in sales of securities by Platinum Equities Inc.

Sept 6 2012: Class action suit filed against Platinum Equities, involving key figure from Concrete Equities. The players involved include Dave Humeniuk, who has been sanctioned by the Alberta Securities Commission, and carries a life time ban for offences related to the Real Estate Commission of Alberta. Mr. Humeniuk was sanctioned by Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) in January 2012, for not disclosing this ban in Offering Memorandums prepared while he was involved with Concrete Equities,Shariff H. Chandran, who has been convicted for misrepresenting himself as a realtor, and Riaz Mamdani. (SHARIFF H. CHANDRAN, also known as S.H. Chandran, Sri Chandran and Srinivansan Chandran)

Class Action Lawsuit Against Platinum Equities

June 25, 2012, McGuigan Nelson LLP filed an Action in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta to advance a claim on behalf of all investors and/or limited partners and/or shareholders in the projects listed in the link below. If you were an investor in one or more of those projects, the Statement of Claim contemplates your investment loss and will be advanced on your behalf. They have separate sub-classes in the lawsuit for each investment, which is generally listed in the link below. The Statement of Claim names many more parties, to incorporate the various corporations at issue with each investment. This is being advanced upon a class action basis, which further contemplates sub-classes for each limited partnership.

McGuigan Nelson LLP Web Site Links:

09/14 ASC lays charges against Platinum Equities more

09/11 Summary of News Coverage - Platinum more
09/11 Hundreds of Investors Attend Town Hall Meeting more
09/10 Important Information about Platinum Equities Class Action Lawsuit more
09/10 CBC The National reports on Platinum Equities Class Action Lawsuit more
09/06 Platinum Class Action Statement of Claim being Amended more
09/06 Press Release relating to Platinum Equities Class Action Lawsuit more
09/05 Message to Dominion (Qualia V) and Lucaya Investors more
08/31 Platinum Class Action: Lucaya Sale more

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Sunpark/Pemberton

243 comments:

  1. As we consider our choices in the days ahead concerning Sunpark, there are a number of things we need to consider:

    First of all, less than two months ago at the Web conference, Shariff said on page 12, that the total Capital requirements for the next 12 months (2011) were:
    a) $180,000 (tax arrears)
    b) $390,000 (tenant improvements and leasing commissions)
    TOTAL: $570,000
    308 LP units = $1850.65 per LP unit capital required

    In the same web conference on page 46, Base 10 Capital pegged the leasing and capitaly costs to Dec. 2011 at even less, at $339,000

    Now, less than two months later, we are suddenly told the following:
    a) $180,000 (tax arrears)
    b) $615,000 (tenant improvements)
    c) $115,000 (leasing commissions)
    d) $150,000 "working capital"? For who?
    e) $100,000 "payment to lender" what "lender"? Computershare Trust supposedly holds the original mortgage until 2013 so we should only be paying monthly mortgage payments as per usual. In our original marketing package we were told that $1,100,000 was set aside in a reserve fund for Sunpark and Pemberton, $1,000,000 I believe for Pemberton, $100,000 I assume for Sunpark. What happened to that money and why are we asked to spend more money for mysterious purposes?
    Now, in less than 2 months we are told we need $3,766 per unit, which is double the figure in October. This is madness people. He is counting on the fact that no one is going to examine these figures, which most people don't and that we are going to be frightened into selling a building prematurely which may not be in our best interests to sell. I believe that he has deliberately painted things in their worst possible light imaginable to force us out of fear to do what he wants us to, not necessarily what is good for us.
    Again, he is the General Partner, who is supposed to act in our best interests. So why do we have no time to prepare for such an important decision? Why is it done over Christmas when he knows everyone is either away or preoccupied with other things, and our ability to work on other options is severely limited? Why is there no meeting about this? Why is there never a meeting about anything? Is it because we would ask questions, the answers to which he does not have the answersto and he knows it? Without a meeting we will never know for sure what the vote is. Do I trust these people after all that has happened? Of course not. Don't we have a right, especially with the potential loss of such a great amount of money at stake, to meet with Platinum and our fellow investors to get this sorted out? Of course we do, but endlessly this situation goes on and we just accept it and let him dictate the terms to us.
    Again, the offer to purchase is from "a party whose identity is concealed due to a confidentiality agreement". Really? In light of everything that we know so far about the history of Sunpark and the Platinum properties in general, does that not raise any alarm bells with anyone? It certainly should.
    YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, THE CASH CALL IS NOT A GIVEN. THIS vote is about just whether we sell or not. If we say no, he says we will have a meeting about the cash call, and if he tries to get out of it, we need to ABSOLUTELY DEMAND that we have one. We will ask the questions we want and hold him accountable. WE DO NOT HAVE TO SELL NOW, NOR DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A CASH CALL, ESPECIALLY UNDER HIS TERMS.
    I don't believe that this offer is presented to us in our best interests at all. If we sell, we still have Pemberton, and if you read between the lines (page iv, where he talks of how we "will need to approve a plan to address the financing of required capital improvements"), we will probably be asked to cough up there as well eventually. I don't believe the problem is with our buildings but with the people running them. That's what needs to go.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it rather odd that I am invested in Sunpark but have never received this letter/email regarding the cash call/sell proposal. I am invested through RRSP so we know that puts me in a different kettle than cash investors. If I did not read blogs such as this, it is likely I would not even know anything was happening. Any other RRSP investors not get any of this communication from Platinum?

    I contacted Platinum and asked to be kept up to date on their communication regarding this proposal. Steve's reply; They are looking into how to deal with the RRSP investors and he will get infomation out as soon as they figure it out with their legal team.

    Isn't it interesting that we RRSP investors are not being given the same information in the same timely fashion as cash investors in the same project? Leads me to believe the Platinum gang is using the divide and conquer strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some of you may recall there was an offer a few years ago. Phillip Pinkus (sp?) chaired the meeting. I don’t recall the exact details but part of it involved that we carry a mortgage.
    The RRSP investors approved it.
    In the non rrsp meeting, no one said a thing until I started to ask questions.
    I invested in a building, not a mortgage. It turned into a pretty vocal discussion and the non rrsp investors rejected it.
    Someone at that meeting took down our contact info.
    You would think from that meeting they understand how to communicate with rrsp/non rrsp investors??
    Sharriff will not release contact info due to it would violate our privacy (BS!!!)
    Send him an email that you are ok with releasing your contact info to other investors.

    Peter B

    ReplyDelete
  4. It does appear that rrsp investors are not in the loop. It was still a cash investment even if it's an rrsp. What about the 3.5% bond for the rrsp that is supposed to be paid quarterly. Haven't seen that for over a year.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am invested in another project with Platinum through an RRSP, they certainly found me when they had a cash call, however they have difficulty keeping me informed with an upcomming mortgage renewal as in there word , we missed you as you are invested through an RRSP.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How can we make an informed decision on the Sunpark Pemberton property without an audited financial statement and an independent property values assessment. This is illegal in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I suggest we all get unc=volved in a class action suit against PE. There is lots of fishy stuff going on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We need to use this blog more as a means to communicate between investors in not only Sunpark but across all Platinum investments.



    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is an investor presentation posted to the website, put out by Platinum.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi everyone,

    I was cut off from the presentation yesterday - twice. Once about 11:15 before I got on to ask questions. Had to redial and get back into the line up, of course way further down the line. The second time was when I was asking questions? Chandran just cut me off. He was smooth though and just did it when he finished talking. I tried to phone in again and wrote into the Chat box on the web presentatin screen. Got a reply from VanDie saying "to send him my questions." Tried again and reply was, "we have no more time." Convenient, isn't it? Why would they shut down before all questions were asked?

    Did anyone else wait to ask a question and not make it on to the Web session?

    I think it shows the advantage/disadvantage (depending on your point of view), of using this means of conferencing doesn't it? Two or three of the callers sure seemed to believe Chandran is the best guy ever – one of them has an email address that has @platinum in it. What do you think is going on?

    If you listened to the conference you heard Chandran will not accept our list of investors that you all emailed to me and I sent to Chandran. Seems like Chandran’s usual delay tactics!

    Everyone needs to Send Chandran (shariff@chandrangroup.com ) their own email asking for a general meeting to be held to get our questions answered. If you Cc me, (
    hildenbrand_doug@hotmail.com) as well we can keep track again. The web conference was not long enough and there are still unanswered questions. We still need to have our General Meeting where ALL QUESTIONS GET ANSWERED!

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  11. When I was cut off I was next going to ask Chandran about the Release Of Lease Agreement that he signed with Colt. I was going to attach this document for you all to view to make up your own mind but I just got an email from VanDie asking if I would be interested in coming in to see their documentation on the Colt affair. I told them I would like to see what they have before I release this document. That is, of course if this meeting happens quickly. If not I will send it shortly. Will keep you posted.

    I thought you might all be interested in hearing what some of the other investors had to say about the web conference and have added their comments into this email below. They said it well.

    One investor (an accountant by profession) says:,

    I wasn’t pleased with the meeting at all:
    Just wanted to let you know that I’ve done a deep dive into the financials and it’s a mess. There are too many questions and ‘irregular’ patterns. The financials have to be audited for sure and by an accountant who’s an expert in commercial real estate buildings of this size. All red numbers (off his summary) were red flags in my mind that require explanation.
    I had many questions on past financial numbers and how our money was spent until the end of 09; although this is in the past, it is an indications of why we are where we are.
    I am hugely disappointed in the loss of Colt and release of their 1.4M debt; even more disappointed that our general partner dealt with a company known for litigation and trimmed the 1.4 to 500k; to make it worse the 500k was let go due to ‘multiple dealings with strategic’. Not at all and not in any way in the interest of partnership. The simple fact that they have more money than us would not affect any outcome in a litigation. If the contract was done right and they violated it, we should sue. If the contract was not done right and there is an escape clause, responsibility falls with Platinum.
    Platinum employee size down to 5 and their CEO seeming tired, doesn’t give me the feeling that we have a great team running our 30M investment (never mind all other investments they run); given the situation, a strong and ready team is required to weather the storm.
    We do have a great investment on hand as mentioned. I believe that if it is managed properly, we should have a profit in our hands by the end of the year.

    I have to repeat here for the benefit of those who did not get a chance to view the web conference; Chandran admitted on my questioning that the loss of Colt is the entire reason that Sunkpark is in any financial difficulty. If they had stayed until the end of their lease we would have been 100% full up until Feb 2011. Colts lease was for $60,000 per month and Chandran released thenm from this obligation which has cost us $1.4 million in lost revenue over this time period. Now he is talking that because we have a cash flow problem we need to have a cash call for another $1.2 million to keep Sunpark going. Chandran's decision to release Colt from their lease could end up costing investors $2.6 million. Ask yourselves if that is the actions of a concerned General Partner that is only interested in our investment making us money?

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  12. When I was cut off I was next going to ask Chandran about the Release Of Lease Agreement that he signed with Colt. I was going to attach this document for you all to view to make up your own mind but I just got an email from VanDie asking if I would be interested in coming in to see their documentation on the Colt affair. I told them I would like to see what they have before I release this document. That is, of course if this meeting happens quickly. If not I will send it shortly. Will keep you posted.

    I thought you might all be interested in hearing what some of the other investors had to say about the web conference and have added their comments into this email below. They said it well.

    One investor (an accountant by profession) says:,

    I wasn’t pleased with the meeting at all:
    Just wanted to let you know that I’ve done a deep dive into the financials and it’s a mess. There are too many questions and ‘irregular’ patterns. The financials have to be audited for sure and by an accountant who’s an expert in commercial real estate buildings of this size. All red numbers (off his summary) were red flags in my mind that require explanation.
    I had many questions on past financial numbers and how our money was spent until the end of 09; although this is in the past, it is an indications of why we are where we are.
    I am hugely disappointed in the loss of Colt and release of their 1.4M debt; even more disappointed that our general partner dealt with a company known for litigation and trimmed the 1.4 to 500k; to make it worse the 500k was let go due to ‘multiple dealings with strategic’. Not at all and not in any way in the interest of partnership. The simple fact that they have more money than us would not affect any outcome in a litigation. If the contract was done right and they violated it, we should sue. If the contract was not done right and there is an escape clause, responsibility falls with Platinum.
    Platinum employee size down to 5 and their CEO seeming tired, doesn’t give me the feeling that we have a great team running our 30M investment (never mind all other investments they run); given the situation, a strong and ready team is required to weather the storm.
    We do have a great investment on hand as mentioned. I believe that if it is managed properly, we should have a profit in our hands by the end of the year.

    I have to repeat here for the benefit of those who did not get a chance to view the web conference; Chandran admitted on my questioning that the loss of Colt is the entire reason that Sunkpark is in any financial difficulty. If they had stayed until the end of their lease we would have been 100% full up until Feb 2011. Colts lease was for $60,000 per month and Chandran released thenm from this obligation which has cost us $1.4 million in lost revenue over this time period. Now he is talking that because we have a cash flow problem we need to have a cash call for another $1.2 million to keep Sunpark going. Chandran's decision to release Colt from their lease could end up costing investors $2.6 million. Ask yourselves if that is the actions of a concerned General Partner that is only interested in our investment making usmoney?

    ReplyDelete
  13. That reminds me of one more thought; Have you noticed Chandran playing up Pemberton as our money maker while he is trying to sell Sunpark? Pemberton has always been appraised at more than full value in all his calculations while Sunpark has a list of reasons why it cannot be appraised so high.

    Did you notice how he dropped the hint about selling Pemberton during the web conference? “Can’t give any information yet, but one offer was pretty lowball”.
    Do you remember the trail of how Sunpark ended up for sale. I believe it was just before summer 2010 (july I think) when Chandran sent out a letter stating he had an interested buyer for Sunpark that was willing to pay our original price of $50,000 per unit. By fall the buyer was only willing to pay $35,000. Then, while he kept potential buyers on the hook, thinking they had a deal at $35,000, he changes the deal to just sell Sunpark for $8,000. Chandran does not inform those he has “ on the hook” that their deal is off at this point. How do I know. I went through the process just to see what he was up to. Only those who asked were told the deal was “on hold for now”.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another investor says;
    As always, Chandran is very slick and has an answer for everything that often sounds great even if not totally factually correct.

    Even if he does have this "e-mail trail" concerning Colt, why would you sign a document in May that is clearly dated Jan. 12 (see attached document)? When you sign a document, especially one as important as that, you are essentially guaranteeing with your signature that the information in that document is correct. To later say that that is not the case puts into question everything this person ever says is true or signs their name to.

    So either the document is correct and Chandran is not telling the whole truth, or the document is incorrect and he is also twisting the facts. If he signed his name to it and now says it is not really true, then that puts into question everything he ever says, has said, or signs his name to. His word therefore means nothing.

    Two and a half months ago, during the October 26, 2010 web conference, we were given certain figures about Sunpark. Now they have drastically changed because they have more accurate information to base it on. Really? What does that say about the information we were given before? If it is now discredited, will this new information also prove to be inaccurate also?

    How do we ever know what is true and what is not coming from Chandran?

    He gives us a doom and gloom scenario in the purchase offer saying that it will take 5 - 10 years to get solvent, but then criticizes blogs because they attract low ball offers which are unfortunate he says, because it is a good property and the market is going to turn around, which is why he said he is committed supposedly to riding out the rough times. So which is it? Again, it seems he spins whatever story suits his purposes at the moment.

    Chandran also stated that the Dominion legal action has been stayed. An investor who was at the court, was later contacted and says there is no truth to this at all. More confusion? We will have to wait for the official word to come out before we see who is telling the truth and who is not.
    Could he be trying to convince a few more investors to sell before this judgement does come out?

    Chandran will not have general meetings – instead he has a conference call that he can control for time, He Chandran gets to talk for as long as he feels he needs to, - He Chandran controls who gets to ask questions he Chandran will not release investor lists, he Chandran has tried to stifle any attempts by investors to contact one another or meet, so he gives us no other choice but to blog. Then he criticizes us for blogging and says we should keep this discussion amongst ourselves How are we to do that when we are not allowed to meet or get in touch with one another, and he has done everything to prevent this? He talks about investor privacy, but he is not concerned about privacy, only maintaining control (like he does in the web conferences).

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would hope that the people running this website would have more intelligence than that.

    If it is true that making private information public could have a negative effect on the value of our properties then I would hope the administrators would consider protecting all of our investments. Posting this presentation certainly does not seem smart to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am suprise Mr. Shariff told Doug about investors sending email to him and asking for General meeting. I have been asking Mr. Shariff before Christmas for having meeting. I sent 3 emails to Steve Van Die and I phoned and left the message 4 times and asked for the meeting. My demand was ignored completely. They are other investors that I know and I have their emails who asked for the meeting. The same thing happened to them. Being ignored. Why Mr. Shariff the meeting is not productive? Maybe it is not productive to you. But it is productive to us. It is our right. It is in our contract. Why not face to face meeting? I would like to ask you questions which I did not have a chance during your conference on line . Since 5 years ago we never had any meeting except for that low and ridiculous offer you presented to us. Why there is no communication? Why we have to stay in the dark. How many times people have to ask you to have a meeting face to face. I really think it is time to have a General meeting. We, the investors we have a lot to tell you!

    ReplyDelete
  17. monthly dist per unit approx $230 x 308 units =
    $70,840 - 60,000 colt's rent = 10,840 loss per mos.
    Is that all the $ we were making & platinum stated they did not take their commision (fee).So how are we going in the red.Worst case senario we should be breaking even.
    Also on the webcast it was mentioned that Rev. Canada froze the Platinum account, and that all the properties had been operating out of a pot.
    That can't be legal,it's like we all buy new cars & pay the payments out of one account .
    So George doesn't cdeposit for a couple of months the account is short . So everyone has their car repo'd. DUH Am I dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  18. PEMBERTON VACANCY AT 21.6%.

    Looks like Pemberton is getting run into the ground as well. Coincidental that Chandran was talking about a low ball offer isn't it? Amazing how a building that used to always be full is now 21% vacant. Class C space in Vancouver downtown right now has a 10% vacancy rate. Why does our buildiing have double that? Check it out at Altus Insite 744 West Hastings Street.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have just found this site and I commend any individual that stated intelligent comments. It is unfortunate that an individual such as the one making the comment at 7:43 AM wastes all of our time!
    I am also invested in Sunpark/Pemberton and have lost faith in Platinum Equities.
    I have e-mailed a couple people this morning with hope that I can be involved with investors wanting to salvage some of our finances!

    ReplyDelete
  20. L and L If the Limited Partners had been given theinformation that we had asked for, there would be no need to air our concerns on a public blog. Lets have our meeting and get answers to ALL our questions. Sunpark is sound; with appropriate management it will regain full market value, not this 'unsolicited' lowball 'offer?' More comments please.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To the individual who posted at 7:43 am today, we're sorry, we did not know that your investment was growing and being preserved, because that certainly isn't the case with the rest of us. We've just been asked to take a $17,000 loss or pay a $4,000 cash call based on figures that seem to dramatically change at the drop of a hat. We are given one expert assessment (paid ultimately out of our pockets)only to have it changed shortly by the next expert assessment because the new one has more accurate information. Really? What does that say about the credibility of the first expert assessment or any assessment given by these people? One can only wonder what the next figures presented will be and the new excuse for why they are so different from the previous ones? Unfortunately the investors in Deerfoot Court and Greenwich park and Glenmore & Centre are faring no better, not to mention the other Platinum investments. As for Riaz Mamdani, he has been involved with the majority of Platinum investments in one way or another and has profitted handsomely from this involvement. Shariff Chandran has also done very well by all accounts, though he likes to reassure us that his interests are somehow aligned with ours. Meanwhile, many of our fellow investors who are retirees, lie awake at night wondering if they will ever see their original investment again, some even being forced to go back to work to make ends meet. But lets not talk about that. That would be complaining, and apparently that is what has got us into this mess. No, silently putting up with this is what has got us into this mess. We've collectively given these people tens, if not hundreds of millions of our dollars, and we have every right to have a full accounting of how these properties are managed and what is happening with our money. Anyone who says different is a blinkered fool. We have been systematically prevented from legitimate avenues of information: No annual general meetings, restricted access to fellow investors preventing the legitimate excersising of rights as outlined in various LPA's and Trust agreements. Infrequent and sometimes non-existent provision of financial statements and books and records. Attempts to meet and contact fellow investors are harshly criticised as somehow hurting the investment, while living in ignorance is apparently helpful to our investments. We are treated as disobedient children, not as mature adults who have given our hard earned money as a sacred bond, legitimately expecting to be treated as we were promised we would be when we first invested. If we were treated all along with the respect we should have been, this blog would never have started. This blog is a symptom of what is wrong with this organization, not it's cause.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You are right I.m not invested in the sunpark/pemberton deal,
    Only in the PMICC, and we get the same BS as what i,m reading, no communication at all, and no payments, I personally think this is more like being a victim of fraud, and i,m seriously thinking to file a case with the RCMP detachment

    ReplyDelete
  23. Victims of Crime Act and Regulation On-Line Survey
    Victims of crime deserve compassion, dignity and respect. Many have experienced traumatic events and can often find their circumstances overwhelming. This Victims of Crime Act and Regulation online survey is designed to make sure their voices are heard.

    The Victims of Crime Act and its related Victims of Crime Regulation came into effect in 1997. With implementation, the former Victims’ Programs Assistance Act and Criminal Injuries Compensation Act (Crimes Compensation Board) were repealed. The new Act created the victims of crime fund, introduced a surcharge on provincial fines and introduced the financial benefits program to replace the crimes compensation board. The financial benefits program is unique in North America. It grants a one-time benefit based on injuries sustained to eligible victims of violent crime as a means of recognizing the impact of the crime. The program is designed to be victim friendly as they do not need to prove any costs or losses in order to receive financial assistance for the harms perpetrated upon them.

    The issues under review have been separated into four themes:

    Applying for Financial Benefits - this theme addresses areas of eligibility for benefits.
    Calculating Victim Benefits - this theme deals with determining injury awards on eligible applications.
    The Appeal Process - this theme pertains to review rights and processes once decisions on financial benefit applications have been made.
    Other Programs and Services for Victims of Crime - The final theme pertains to the other programs and services including existing grants to organizations as well as the ability to fund other programs for victims through the Victims of Crime Fund.
    The Victims of Crime Act is a law that defines who is a victim of crime in Alberta, and what supports are available to them.

    The Regulation is a companion document to the Act that gives more detail about the supports available to victims of crime, and how Government programs and services should be administered, as defined by the Act.

    In responding to this survey you may wish to consult the Act and Regulation.

    There are a total of 16 questions in the survey. It will be open from December 10th, 2010, to January 27th, 2011. Every victim matters and that is why we are encouraging as many people as possible to take part in this process.

    We would very much appreciate your input on the Act and the Victims of Crime Regulation

    ReplyDelete
  24. In reading through this blog and some of the emails I have been receiving, one thing bothers me more than anything, Platinum’s efforts at resolving these issues have been rejected at least by the handful of hardcore detractors.

    I share many of the same frustrations that you do and I want many of the same things that you want. However I think the motivations of those leading this investor group has gone beyond simply protecting our investment. Perhaps this change in motivations is not conscious

    I saw the conference call as an attempt to clear up many of these outstanding issues. It may not have covered all of our questions, but it was a start. There was an offer made to meet with Doug and Platinum indicated they were receptive to an investor over site committee. This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for and don’t understand why this group is not being at least somewhat receptive.

    I am much more interested in productively moving forward then settling a vendetta. We need to solve these issues, not create more. While there are problems here, I don’t think we are in a situation similar to Concrete or Shire, unless of course we turn it into that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is the answer to the email on January 24. Well I don't see it the way you see it. Are you kidding me. The offer that Chandron made to Doug is non sense. Doug is not an inspector. Why they don't let the inspector verifies their books? He can show something to Doug and denies it two months later like the copy that another investor has in his hand (he received it from Chandron and Chandron denied it completely during the conference on line

    ReplyDelete
  26. Reply to Jan 24, 2011 8:59 comment

    This group has been formed BECAUSE we have found information that leaves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chandran has not been telling investors the truth.

    Investors with Platinum have had to go to court to simply try to get basic information about thier investments. Does that seem like a GP that is open and transparent? Ask yourslf, why would our GP resort to legal manouvers to prevent investors from obtaining information about thier own investments? Logic would say he has something to hide doesn't it?

    Further, Why did Chandran send out information to investors in our quarterly updates that was not true? AND then why did Chandran change his story about this same information? Does that point toward a GP that is honest? If the true story was told in the first place it would never have to change would it?

    As for Sunpark,We are disturbed that our GP would release an anchor tenant WITHOUT having an agreement in place to ensure we would not lose two years worth of lease payments. ($1.4 million) Now he talks about showing an email trail proving he was in discussions with Strategic in May regarding a document that he signed in January? That just simply does not make sense!

    I am not sure how else to look at this? The document was signed. Colt was released of their lease obligations and, Chandran had no one else liable for the lost payments.

    It is normal for companies to move before their lease is up but then they, (or their new landlord signs an agreement to) remain responsible for the remainder of the lease BEFORE A RELEASE OF LEASE AGREEMENT IS SIGNED.

    Are you not concerned about all these lies? I am! The motivations of those who "fell into this information" are not leading this investor group - more like trying to share FACTUAL INFORMATION so each investor can make up thier own mind. There is no vendetta as you seem to think - just concern because of the facts that have been uncovered. Concern because the facts point toward a GP not acting in our best interests.

    ReplyDelete
  27. How can we be certain that this document was signed in January? It wouldn't surprise me if it was backdated by Strategic.

    If they have copys of emails showing that they didn't receive it until May as was suggested on the conference call I would be inclined to believe that.

    I haven't seen these emails though, I would be interested to hear if you had your meeting with Platinum and whether this is the documentation that was provided?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I have a suggestion for those doing the email thing-they should only be if you have something "new" to add-an email saying you agree with someone previous is a waste of time if you have nothing additional to add. We don't need "atta boys"-we need action

    There is a lot of talk about changing the GP-perhaps at somepoint but not now. I believe the OM says that if you change the GP,they leave all the baggage/liability behind them. Do you really want him to walk away scott free? What new GP would step into this mess??
    How about suing the GP for our rental loss-$14,400,000 /308? LP's = ~$47,000 each (i'm sure we would settle for less)

    ReplyDelete
  29. I believe the rental loss information provided by the GP was $1.4 million and NOT $14.4 million.
    As for any GP walking away "scott free" the Limited Partnership Agreement is pretty clear about the GP duties and responsibilities/obligations.
    I am still unclear however why the OM dated April 19, 2006 states clearly that the GP is to hold annual meetings and present annual budgets for investors' approval which is required by a vote.
    Yet the Limited Partnership Agreement dated April 11, 2006 in the same "Definitions" section states only that the GP will prepare annual budgets.
    Which is it and what overrides what?
    Is this a misrepresentation to potential investors that was made in the OM or merely an oversight?
    I personally think knowledge of the existence of annual meetings and investor approval reqirements for budgets are important factors in making investment decisions.
    How many investors relied on this feeling of a layer of security with personal involvement in decision making for the "Partnership"?
    How much of the current financial problems could have been avoided with the GP carrying out this OM requirement for meetings and budget approvals?
    We'll never know because the GP never bothered to do either of these things.
    According to the LPA the GP is not responsible for anything that transpires AFTER they vacate their position as that would clearly be the responsibility of a new GP.
    The original GP would still however be responsible for and accountable to Partners for any decisions made in the management of the LP assets before any new GP is voted in.
    Couldn't a Judge also order replacement of the GP and assign a temporary Trustee to protect the LP if proper legal motions were filed?
    I think we will never know the full scope of any LP problems and issues and financial state without a full audit, same as what Dominion Place investors filed for through legal counsel.
    If a decision was ever made to sue the GP wouldn't we all want the full picture anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am a Dominion investor so I am not sure why anyone posted this to "Sunpark".
    I do consider the contents of a letter from legal counsel to Qualia V investors confidential as well.
    In any event in case anyone is confused here, please note that this is NOT an open information meeting for any "interested limited partners".
    It is a meeting that has been scheduled by legal counsel specifically for investors in Dominion Place LP to attend.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The best way to do it is to sue Chandron for our lost $1.4 million. He did not acted in our interest for sure. Now he got scared and tell us you welcome to audit the books. But still no sign of calling for general meeting. Facing the investors is too scary for Mr. Chandron.

    ReplyDelete
  32. in reference to the email chain, I hope those that are now destitute and can't pay their share for an audit or the cash call voted to sell (that was their only logical vote if they can't afford to belly up to the bar)Pretty naive to vote to not sell w/o realizing it will cost you money to keep the property.
    As was stated by someone in the email chain (from his Concrete Equities experience), a few will be absorbing the cost of those that can't/won't pay the cash call, audit and legal fees etc.If we "save" Sunpark, need to assess how to treat those that paid more or less than their share.

    ReplyDelete
  33. And we thought the emails were confidential. With the recent apology to Shariff by an individual to the entire email list it is obvious there is a spy among us.
    I think we are doing the cart before the horse.The most difficult part of this will be getting a new GP that is actually willing to step in. Does Dominion have someone in the wings? If so, maybe they would be willing to take more buildings?
    The audit, legal fees etc are a complete waste of time and money if there is no GP ready to step in. That needs to be the first step.
    Stephen Butt with Avenue Commercial took over the Concrete properties. Maybe he can handle more.

    ReplyDelete
  34. As a Concrete investor, I too was hurt by the market and more importantly Concrete's directors. I do not think however, we should resort to Avenue Commercial and Mr. Butt. He's been very careful to try and protect his name and his agenda on the CE properties, but it was just a cash grab for his fees and to be painted as a "savior". The mortgage on SNC Lavalin now thanks to his? Utter garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I have a lot of money invested here with some of my family and friends and I wanted to ensure that our investments were protected.Now seeing the email with the apology, my concern is NOT that our emails are not confidential but that how many of the emails that went back and forth had "Untruths" and had us all riled up. I was reading a lot of the personal comments posted yesterday and I think that this group has now lowered to an all time low and is at a level that my family, friends and myself do not want to be associated with. I wish the rest of you all the best and God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There have been a lot of lies by Platinum Equities principals and employees to investors. We fell in a trap of lies by snakes. Everytime Chandran is approached, he makes up lies as he goes along to make everything look good, while he is getting time to put another mortgage or lien on the properties and making us investors, suckers. The only way to deal with the Chandrans is to secure court orders for all the financial records for all the properties and put all the pieces together.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I AGREE ENTIRELY WITH YOUR EMAIL. WELL SAID.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I don't think that we need to spend more money getting court orders for financial records. There was an email circulated stating that audit reports can be completed. Most of us want to get our money out of these investments. Audits cost a lot of money and when you have investments with a large number of investors involved and most are angry and adverse, auditors are going to do a lot of expensive work.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Securing court orders for the financial records for all the properties is essential because that is the only way we can get them. Then the audit can proceed.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes, there was an email circulated suggesting and audit, however nothing further has happened beyond this "suggestion". How can we possibly conduct an audit when, by their own admission, our General Partner has not been able to successfully file our overdue tax returns, which supposedly are delaying our witheld distributions. Now is the time for positive action to protect what remains of our equity and to get a full and accurate accounting of our investment.

    ReplyDelete
  41. To Evan Holdings Ltd.
    We need to get all the financial records of all the properties with court orders. Prior years' tax returns would also put the pieces together. Then audits can proceed.

    PE and its principals are refusing to pay contractors for their legitimate work and the contractors have been forced to file lawsuit.

    This is a sign that the principals are scamming legitimate contractors and investors.

    Its about time that this scamming STOPS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. The next hearing date for Court Action #1001-18286 Dominion Place Investors vs. Defendant Multus Investment Corporation (General Partner/Shariff Chandran) is scheduled for TUESDAY,MARCH 1, 2011 @1O:00 a.m. at Court of Queen's Bench, Calgary.
    Address of the Court House is 601-5th Street S.W.
    Justice LoVecchio will be presiding.
    Further investigation by outside accountants into LP original 2009 financial statements and re-stated 2009 financial statements (October 2010), extra mortgages and related party transactions has been approved/ordered by the court as a result of legal counsel's submissions at the hearing held this past Tuesday.
    Investors are once again encouraged to attend this upcoming hearing to stay informed and learn the facts to form their own opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Quite agree,hopefuly we'll have some news to post by next week on legal representative for ALL of Platinum investors. This will be a call to arms and we will need ALL on board to not only help punish those for wrong doing but also for FULL restitution from ALL guilty parties.
    February 16, 2011 1:09 PM

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dominion Place Investors vs. Defendant Multus Investment Corporation (General Partner/Shariff Chandran) is scheduled for TUESDAY,MARCH 1, 2011 10:00 a.m. at Court of Queen's Bench, Calgary.

    Your attendance would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Doug said...

    did you catch the article in the Calgary Herald business section today? "security regulators cracking down on fraud". Talks about ASC taking fraudsters to criminal court and getting jail time. Talks about Calgarian, Robert John Sellars being found guilty of lying to investors, received a two year sentence and was ordered to pay restitution of almost $2 million.

    a step in the right direction.couldn't come at a better time.

    Doug
    February 23, 2011 10:04 AM

    ReplyDelete
  46. People should think about how their behaviours affect their KARMA. Those who steal from others will forever have bad and evil KARMA for the rest of this life and their next lives.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Amazing, out of the blue come more "unsolicited offers" on our buildings. No discussion of the offers, no discussion of all the charges and adjustments to be made, no discussion about the unpaid distributions included in the net valuation. No business acumen or ethics, whatsoever. NO MENTION OF THE $5,750,000.00 MORTGAGE PLACED ON THE PEMBERTON BUILDING IN NOVEMBER, 2010, WITH ROBERT LEE LTD.!!!!!!! BEFORE VOTING ON ANYTHING DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY. Fellow investors, we are being taken for another ride.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I feel at minimum, we should review a 2010 year end financial statement as well as interim statement to end of February. I would like to determine the current cash flow as this is a determining factor in the value of the property. If there is a legitimate buyer, he would have received this information from Platinum before spending 32 million dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Does anyone care about this $5,750,000.00 mortgage. It is not included in any of the calculations presented to us, yet it is registered against the Pemberton Building? Let's hear from you. There is way too much to be considered and reviewed in these offers to simply mail in a vote and hope for the best.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Not wanting to appear rude but what to date has actually been accomplished with blog postings, talk, emails and investor "concerns" repeatedly expressed by so many to the GP or anyone else at Platinum?
    Seems after many months investors are still in the same place.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Absolutely nothing!!This is all bullshit! Sell everything and let us get our money out. We are litigating with someone who is litigious. I sent in my vote today! If I come out of it with my prinicipal I am very satisfied.

    ReplyDelete
  52. With a recent $5.75 million second mortgage on the Pemberton Building registered as ADDITIONAL DEBT without the required investor approval, who is going to pay for this mortgage that has never even been disclosed by the GP?
    What were the mortgage funds used for-day to day normal operations of the Partnership?
    Bottom line here-the debt is registered against an LP asset and has to be paid off before any change of ownership can take place.
    Good luck getting your principal back.

    ReplyDelete
  53. jesus u conspiracy theorist have nothing to do but conjecture. If he wanted to, he woulda already took off w/the $ and / or keep milking you for more. He coulda closed shop, declared bankruptcy and go somewhere w/all our $ and live a nice life ... you can't convince pplz the cup is half full when all they see is the cup is always half empty. The facts are there for all to see. Read the contract, if not, get a lawyer to read it to you, which most of you SHOULD have done BEFORE. This type of investment is obviously not for you as you are not educated enough to understand what it is you are buying into and all the risks. No matter what you think or say, this is YOUR CHANCE TO GET OUT. Vote yes and get most of your $ back or vote no, and PAY MORE to keep it going to the tune of $8000 and meanwhile, the lawyers you hire to sue, will keep milking you for $. The retainers are just the start...ask what they charge per hour if you do go to court. Throwing good $ away with no guarantee of a result. Wait, that sounds like this investment or any other REIT you get involved with !! Sharks are all around !! Get out, get your $ and go put it under your mattress where YOU and ONLY YOU have utter and total control of it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Does anyone care about this $5,750,000.00 mortgage. It is not included in any of the calculations presented to us, yet it is registered against the Pemberton Building? Let's hear from you. There is way too much to be considered and reviewed in these offers to simply mail in a vote and hope for the best." ...

    The mortgage is already in the spreadsheet presented in Appendix A. The total mortgaged debt is $8+ million of which the $5.75 is a part of. Find a lawyer and pay the $200/hr for him to explain to you where you stand. Make sure he talks fast :)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Unfortunately, the previous post is operating under the assumption that the figures you have been give are the figures you will get. Doesn't the history of this fiasco suggest otherwise. To date, no legal fees have been incurred. However a criminal investigation has been launched and other regulatory bodies are reviewing the operations of the General Partner.
    If you feel that you have been treated fairly by the General Parnter and that your best interests have always been at the forefront of decision making then go ahead and vote to sell without any further information. However, if you earned your money honestly, invested it in good faith and believe in the rule of law, then demand accountability and full disclosure before making your decision. You have time, use it to your advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Sorry, the 8.2 million mortgage is the residual of the orginal 9 million mortgage taken out at the purchase of the Pemberton building. That mortgage was with Computershare. The additonal mortgage of 5.75 million is with Robert Lee Ltd, of Vancouver, and was registered in November, 2010. If in doubt do your own title search on the Pemberton Building. You can do that yourself and don't have to pay any lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Sayyyyyyyyy.....After reading through most of these comments, how do I know this isn't a group led by someone behind the scenes who wants to start a blog to devalue our investments in order to submit a lowball offer ? Cause inner turmoil that then leads to outbursts of insanity in order to "air dirty laundry" ? Similar to a couple going through a divorce and wanting to have a fire sale on their property ? Maybe some of the leaders here work on / posting on behalf of Mamdani ? How do we all know some of you don't work for the lawyers so that they can charge us huge sums of $ in the guise of a class action lawsuit ? Thousands of dollars later while they drag us through court systems, hiring auditor after auditor and billing us, the investors. My $ is not safe w/anyonnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeee !!!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Title/mortgage searches are not free. Please explain how when on the city website, it says different.

    http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/heritage/researchguide.htm

    ou can search for Land Title transfers and these will provide further information such as the persons who bought and sold the property, the purchase price and any mortgages held on title. This information may reveal historical legal descriptions if your building was once part of a larger parcel of property that was subdivided.

    If you need to do a Land Title search, there are two available options:

    Contact the Land Title Office (see "Where To Go" section for address). They will do a historical search of the Land Title or Land Title transfer of your building for a fee. The fee would likely be less than it would be to use a private firm, but it may take longer for your search to be done.
    Contact a private land title search company (see the Vancouver Yellow Pages under: Land Title Search) to do a historic search for a fee. Although a private firm may be more expensive than the Land Title Office, they may process your search more quickly.

    Helpful Hint:
    Searching out Land Titles or Land Title transfers can become very expensive depending on how many times your building was bought and sold and the time that it takes staff to do the research. It is best to determine a budget of what you are willing to spend before beginning a search. Whether using the Land Title Office or a private firm, advise them of how much you are willing to spend and ask them to contact you when they have reached that amount. Also, it is important to inform the Land Title Office or the private firm of how far back you wish to have the research. Begin by estimating when your building was constructed. That way, the title search will not extend back beyond the date of construction and incur unnecessary costs. (For example, if you have a house that appears to have been built in the 1920's, and you already have found a water permit for 1924, you may want to limit the land title search to everything after 1922.) The cost will ultimately depend on the time it takes to trace the many transactions.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Land title searches aren't free. Please tell us how if u know of someone ..as stated on city's website ..

    Searching the Land Titles for your property provides very accurate legal information about the previous owners of the land your building occupies. You can search for Land Title transfers and these will provide further information such as the persons who bought and sold the property, the purchase price and any mortgages held on title. This information may reveal historical legal descriptions if your building was once part of a larger parcel of property that was subdivided.

    If you need to do a Land Title search, there are two available options:

    Contact the Land Title Office (see "Where To Go" section for address). They will do a historical search of the Land Title or Land Title transfer of your building for a fee. The fee would likely be less than it would be to use a private firm, but it may take longer for your search to be done.
    Contact a private land title search company (see the Vancouver Yellow Pages under: Land Title Search) to do a historic search for a fee. Although a private firm may be more expensive than the Land Title Office, they may process your search more quickly. Also, they may provide additional information from attached documents, such as wills or death certificates, that they discover during the search.
    For both of the above options, you must provide the street address and the legal description of your property to begin a Land Title search. The legal description of your property is found on your mortgage documents and legal survey plan.

    Helpful Hint:
    Searching out Land Titles or Land Title transfers can become very expensive depending on how many times your building was bought and sold and the time that it takes staff to do the research. It is best to determine a budget of what you are willing to spend before beginning a search. Whether using the Land Title Office or a private firm, advise them of how much you are willing to spend and ask them to contact you when they have reached that amount. Also, it is important to inform the Land Title Office or the private firm of how far back you wish to have the research. Begin by estimating when your building was constructed. That way, the title search will not extend back beyond the date of construction and incur unnecessary costs. (For example, if you have a house that appears to have been built in the 1920's, and you already have found a water permit for 1924, you may want to limit the land title search to everything after 1922.) The cost will ultimately depend on the time it takes to trace the many transactions.

    vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/heritage/researchguide.htm

    ReplyDelete
  60. land title searches aren't free .. explain how. From city of vancouver website :

    You can search for Land Title transfers and these will provide further information such as the persons who bought and sold the property, the purchase price and any mortgages held on title.

    If you need to do a Land Title search, there are two available options:

    Contact the Land Title Office (see "Where To Go" section for address). They will do a historical search of the Land Title or Land Title transfer of your building for a fee. The fee would likely be less than it would be to use a private firm, but it may take longer for your search to be done.
    Contact a private land title search company (see the Vancouver Yellow Pages under: Land Title Search) to do a historic search for a fee. Although a private firm may be more expensive than the Land Title Office, they may process your search more quickly. Also, they may provide additional information from attached documents, such as wills or death certificates, that they discover during the search.

    Helpful Hint:
    Searching out Land Titles or Land Title transfers can become very expensive depending on how many times your building was bought and sold and the time that it takes staff to do the research. It is best to determine a budget of what you are willing to spend before beginning a search. Whether using the Land Title Office or a private firm, advise them of how much you are willing to spend and ask them to contact you when they have reached that amount. Also, it is important to inform the Land Title Office or the private firm of how far back you wish to have the research. Begin by estimating when your building was constructed. That way, the title search will not extend back beyond the date of construction and incur unnecessary costs. (For example, if you have a house that appears to have been built in the 1920's, and you already have found a water permit for 1924, you may want to limit the land title search to everything after 1922.) The cost will ultimately depend on the time it takes to trace the many transactions.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Simple math and simple reasoning project a simple conclusion. A NO SALE vote here. [times three]

    ReplyDelete
  62. NO SALE = pay more $ = more frustration w/our situation = having to go to bed knowing that shariff is in charge = sleepless nights = no end to stress

    NUFF SAID !

    ReplyDelete
  63. Land title searches are not free. When you go to the city's website, they even tell you that. You can either go through them or a private firm, but it's not a library where you can look it up yourself. You need someone to spend time, which is their job and their money. If you have a way, please share how you can do a free land title search.

    ReplyDelete
  64. People need to learn that with any investment there is a risk. It is the reward and risk factor. Higher returns = higher risks. We should not get emotionally attached to an investment, we need to just cut our losses short, and use the cash to invest in another investment. If you are so dissatisfied with Platinum, then why do you want to leave your money there and pour more money into it. Instead of trying to fight Shariff, why not just let go and stop obsessing over the loss and recoup it some other way. If we continue to fight this, in the end the lawyers are the ones laughing all the way to the bank. Whenever you entrust your money with someone else, there is ALWAYS a risk of losing. This is an opportunity for us to get out of this mess and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  65. We are emotionally attached to our money because we worked hard for our money and to let other people deceive us to try and steal it, is ABOMINABLE!

    ReplyDelete
  66. I dont think a 50% return or a principal return is stealing our money. I received absolutely nothing other then a tax loss from other companies that I invested with. I for one would like to see Platinum survive this so that my prinicpal can be returned instead of some lawyers and accountants walking away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Did all those millions of people who invested in Enron know that one of the risks they might be taking by investing in Enron was the possibility that the owners might be crooked and capable of fixing the "audited" books? Did the American Securities Commission make sure to all investors that this was a risk they took in investing public companies? Lets be serious here, we all understood there was a risk(Economic) in investing in these projects, however I doubt that any of us ever thought it would be an "Enron' type of Risk.

    ReplyDelete
  68. To post Friday March 11, 2011 3.58 PM
    you gave the most appropriate analogy to this current situation with LPs investors' money.

    ReplyDelete
  69. You guys are all looking for guarantees in life. Investing is risking your money. Shariff can rightly or wrongly manage it, close shop and screw you over. Whatever he wants. NO GUARANTEES regardless of what you "think" or what amount of risk is "acceptable" to you. Once you hand over the cheque, might as well count it lost unless you are the one handeling all the transactions. Even if he gives you the books to look at, how do you know it's right ? How do you REALLY know ? If you don't understand then don't invest. How many of you actually consulted a lawyer BEFORE you handed the money over ? Scared to lose it all ? This is your chance to get more than last time and almost all your investment back as you don't trust him. Look at concrete equities in court, spending $ on lawyers and getting nothing close to what they have invested. This is your second chance, why would you not jump at it instead of continuing to battle / try to prove yourself right. There must come a time to let it go, especially if you have a second chance.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Everyone worked hard for their money, and would like to see that their hard earned money will yield them some big returns, but sometimes it doesn't work out that way. In investing, its sometimes knowing when to cut your losses that you will be ahead in the long run. Regardless of what Shariff did or did not do, the bottom line is he already have our money, even if we find out that he did not acted out in faith to the investors, so what? Our money is still with Platinum, we have to pull more of our money to fight him, and we might not even end up winning in the end. Even if we get rid of Shariff as the GP, how can we be sure that the next GP will be any better? Do we really want to waste more of your hard earned money in a losing investment? I for one learned that this is the wrong investment for me, not only do I have to deal with the problems of the GP but also the decisions of my fellow investors that might not be in line with my own decisions. Of course when you put your money up in the hopes of earning more money no one wants to believe that there is a chance that your money not return to you but there is always that RISK factor out there. Do you really want to leave your money in this investment for another 5-10 years more in the HOPES that it might go turnaround.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I dont know if you guys all have an extra $8000 lying around. I for one do not. And if we continue to battle, how much MORE do we have to bring up in the future ? Nothing is to guarantee that the market WILL GO UP. Look around you, look at all these deseasters happening, japan, libya, etc, there is so much uncertainty going forward, i would like to get out whatever i can. At this stage, our loss would be minimal, and 4yrs of our time vs 5-10yrs of uncertainty, more cash calls to come, stress...who needs it. This is like an apartment condo you own, if you don't like the decisions of the strata, you move or sell it. You don't take them to court to try to prove you are right or that they mismanged the complex. Time to move on pplz !!

    ReplyDelete
  72. LPs don't listen to posts Friday March 11 2011 11.20 AM, & 3.58 PM;

    Saturday March 12, 2011 9.59 AM, 11.20 AM and 3:13 PM,

    GET YOUR PRINCIPAL PLUS PROFIT OUT OF THERE WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THEM!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Enron management and Arthur Andersen auditors lied to Enron's pensioners and investors, thus stealing their money.

    Arthur Andersen went under for lying.

    Enron's Ken Lay died in prison and the other management team who lied are still in federal prison where they should ROT!

    Did Enron employees who lost their pension knew the Enron management was going to steal from them? Management gave employees pension in Enron stock and said these stocks are good in Enron. Meanwhile, management was selling their stock in Enron. The same applies in this situation. It was all LIES AND DECEPTION, cover-ups and STEALING which equals big time fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  74. To post Saturday March 12, 2011 10:27pm
    Before you starting telling people what to do maybe you can offer some intelligent reason of how you think we can get our principal plus profit out. Just from some of the posting there is alot of uneducated investors out there. Can you guarantee that will be able to get our principal plus profit? How are we going to do it? Pull it out of Shariff's ass? If you think we can fight this and win, how about I sell you my unit? I know there is a lot of smart investors our there too, do you really want to subject your investment at the mercy of some of these uneducated investors.
    Most of the shareholders invested in ENRON lost all or most of their money because they HOPE that eventually their shares might go back up. The people that were responsible for the fraud got what they deserved, but in the end, the shareholders also lost everything they invested in.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I wouldn't buy any more Platinum Equities fraud crap! You can't pull your money and profit out of Shariff's ass. You have the law which is for your use. So that is the way you can get your money back from Shariff's ass.

    ReplyDelete
  76. If you are not happy with the terms that Shariff put in his proposed offer to buy your building, it is up to you to decide if you want to hide Shariff's unwillingness to reveal that he has been using LPs investment money for his own and his family's gain and any other co-conspirators along with him. Shariff is already in contempt of the law by not showing up at his trials. Contempt of court equals jail time.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Shariff has been using LPs money without accountability to the LPs. This shows lack of respect for LPs. DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY. It is all LPs money.

    ReplyDelete
  78. LPs see post Wednesday March 9, 2011 8.22 AM.

    No discussions about offers. DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY AND FULL DISCLOSURE. LPs have a right to RESPECT, accountability and full disclosure.

    ReplyDelete
  79. accountability ? Law ? are you blind to what has been happening w/Enron and Concrete Equities ? Even if he goes to jail, where does that leave your $50k ? Did those enron investors see any of their $ returned ? Do you want my shares ? You can chase PE around the court systems, wasting your time showing up to court, taking time out of your day to end up in frustration as the law is for those that can afford good lawyers. He has all your $ and all your cards, what makes you think you can fight him w/out sacrificing more $ and health ? The law is for pplz w/$...look @ OJ ..he's broke but bought the best lawyers to get himself a not guilty verdict. You guys are looking for a fight, not an investment. Y not take your $ out, vote yes, then use it to launch a civil suit against PE ? Those have a lower burden of proof, so your chances to win would be better. Leave the rest of us out of it. I bet if you got your investment back, you wouldn't even bother anymore w/this nonsense ...

    ReplyDelete
  80. With all those mortgages on all the Platinum Equities properties, Shariff has all the LPs cash. Why don't file a civil claim to get your money back?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Those that want to pursue the litigation can do so on their own, most of us would like to see our funds returned in the shortest time frame. I dont see the benefit of dragging the rest of us down that road. The individuals that want to continue with litigation can do so after the rest of us get our money. I dont have the time or the money to fight them. He is not stupid, he has every law firm in Calgary and Edmonton tied up, litigation is playing his game. Do you think our lawyer is going to help get money back or ensuring he has a pay cheque for the next couple of years. How much do you think the lawyers in the Concrete matter made? If you think that was a victory think again. This is the best outcome for to sll all the assets.

    I want the sale to pass, you can fight him all you want on your own time and own dime! I want to be able to retire in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Well, if you want some peace of mind, head down to your local police station and RCMP office and state you are out how many thousands of dollars. Let the RCMP help you with your litigation. Why do you think Shariff does not appear in court? Because he's got plenty of fraud to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Well Please talk for yourself. Not for most of us. I don't want the sale to passe if he does not answer to our concerns and there is no meeting. I will vote no for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Answer what ? Even if he says there's fraud and it's found out and he has spent all the $ so what ? Look @ Bernie Madoff, the biggest ponsie scheme in the world and the pplz are only getting back pennies on the dollar and he's doing 100 years in jail. You would rather vote no to PAY sharriff your $50,000 / LP to go to jail ? You make no sense. Accountability comes at a cost. If someone told you that this would be your situation 5 years ago, i bet you wouldn't invest and keep your $50k. So what is the difference now ? Why vote no ? You like to fight w/your $ ? You must be filthy rich. Do yourself a favour and the rest of us, consult a lawyer or someone who has a different outlook that you respect and are not involved in this and have them weigh the plus / minus of the situation and make an informed decision. Everyone wants the right answer, but not at the cost of $50k.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I have only one thing to tell you. I am not rich. I worked hard for my money that I gave Chandran. I know so many investors which are going to vote no to sell. You give me impression that you are not investor and maybe you are part of his group.

    ReplyDelete
  86. i am an investor and just want an end to this nightmare. If you are dumb enough / rich enough to fight him, go ahead. Please pull your $ out and sue him on ur own / in a civil court. Don't forget, lawyers cost $, time, stress. What do you expect to happen ? You will get double your $ back ? Use your head and read what happened to some of the other similar investments. They are either all still fighting for years in court, or have not gotten anywhere near their original investment back. Think w/ur brains and not your heart. If you don't believe me, go talk to the RCMP, they are free, paid for by your tax dollars. Or go spend a few hundred for some good, unbiased advice with a lawyer. He will tell you the consequences of voting no. Dont be stubborn because you are only fighting with your own money. You are already out $50,000, you want to keep paying more ?

    ReplyDelete
  87. For your information you are out with almost $41,000. Not $50,000. Please do not take Chandran's side. It makes me sick.

    ReplyDelete
  88. So that's better than the $35k we were getting offered before. I am not taking sides with anyone. I am taking the side of MY MONEY. I want out. You would rather not take the $41k, and TRY TO GET MORE by how ? Paying a lawyer to chase him down ? Throw more money down a bottomless pit ? Think about it, look, don't take my word. I am only offering my opinion as this concerns all of us. It's not 'me vs u'. It's us all trying to get out of a bad situation which we all don't agree with. Talk to a 3rd party, get the right facts. Talk to a lawyer and see what will happen if u vote yes. Talk to them and ask what will happen if u vote no. Think with your brains, not your heart. Talk to the RCMP and see what will happen if you take him to court. Ask the lawyers that you want to hire how much it could cost you and how much could you get back. Use your brain for something other than keeping hair on it.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Guess you will have to call me "dumb" too but what is the financial impact of the recent $5.75 million mortgage Chandran had registered in November on the Pemberton Building?
    This registered debt has to be paid.
    Where is the money coming from to do so?
    Chandran did not include it in his "deductions" in calculations of returns to investors from sale proceeds did he?
    In fact he has never even mentioned this 2nd mortgage; only the balance of the first mortgage as owing and to be deducted.
    Has he answered our questions about this 2nd mortgage; why it is there and where the funds went and how it is to be paid off?
    If so someone should please enlighten us here!
    $5,750,000 registered debt to be covered by 308 investors through the Partnership would equal $18,669 per LP unit LESS in a payout from a sale would it not?
    How can anyone vote without any answers regarding this extra mortgage?

    ReplyDelete
  90. so voting no would get you an answer to that ? wouldn't that happen regardless of a yes / no vote ? He already said that you are getting $41k / LP if you vote yes. Have you emailed him and asked for an explanation ? Called up platinum and ask to spk to steve / or shariff ? Im not calling anyone dumb, im just trying to bring some sense into a situation that doesn't seem to benefit anyone by us batteling each other. This is not a time for egos but a time, it seems to me, to try for all of us to get the best out of a potentially bad, maybe even going to worse situation. If you vote no, you have to pay, if you vote yes, you could get the $41k back. Dont you think the banks are all over this looking at his mortgages etc ? How could he possibly give us the $41k if your calculations are correct ? These are legal documents that he is putting forth. They need to be factually correct as this is a sales contract between us, the LP and the buyer. You don't have to believe me / battle with me, i'm not your enemy. Consult a lawyer and find out for yourself what the real answers are. Call platinum and ask about that second mortgage. Voting on fear benefits no one, not even yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  91. So according to you anybody says no to sale is dumb. No to sale because we don't know the fact. If it was up to you we would have sold it the last time and got only $35,000 from $50,000 of our investment. Thanks to the persistent investors in less than two months he was forced to bring a much better offer. Open your eyes. I guess they are closed because you don't see what is going on. Cool down. Don't rush.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Read my post. I never said anyone is DUMB. Im simply advising you to consult a 3rd party who is not involved. You seem to want to pick a fight ? I am not here for that. It's simple to be ignorant, but takes effort to get informed. There are no persistent investors that caused a better offer. Did they solicit that by putting up ads ? How did they manage to "make" an offer ? An offer is someone WANTING to purchase your building. How did the investors bring that about ? You are the one insulting people / picking a fight here.

    ReplyDelete
  93. our investment is underwater, we lost money on this.. Who pays for their salaries and office rents. we lost and somebody is making money here.

    That's all i can say...

    ReplyDelete
  94. Despite Platinum's faults, on the sale of other buildings in the past the estimated payouts have been very close to the actual payouts.

    ReplyDelete
  95. As we are all investors in the same boat here, let’s not fight among each other. We should be working together and try to make the best of a bad situation. There is no point in calling names, demeaning each other. That will not accomplish anything. Let’s have a constructive point of view. It should not be about who is right or wrong here, but to offer each other’s thoughts and views and make each other understand where they are coming from. You have to understand that some people might not have the means to keep their cash with Platinum any longer or that they do not want to invest any more money into it. None of us here anticipated that we would lose money on this investment and loss faith in our GP. I do not want to leave my money any longer or put more money with Platinum as I have lost all faith and trust with them. There is no guarantee that this might turnaround, and who knows how much more money we will need to pour in for a lawsuit and no one knows if we will win or not. The law is NOT ALWAYS on your side. In the end I just think that the real winners will NOT be the investors, but the lawyers, accountants and Platinum as they already won with the money they made off from us and they still have OUR MONEY.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Actually thanks to the persistent investors we voted against an offer for Sunpark that was higher than the offer that is currently being brought forward.

    The higher offer on Pemberton somewhat makes up for what I consider to be a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Actually, if you do the math, if we had sold the sunpark earlier and then received the offer on pemberton now, we would make more than the $41k for both. But that was then this is now :)

    ReplyDelete
  98. re post: "Despite Platinum's faults, on the sale of other buildings in the past the estimated payouts have been very close to the actual payouts. Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:17:00 PM"
    Definitely someone from Platinum who posted this because those of us who got paid KNOW IT NOT to be true!

    ReplyDelete
  99. This just goes to show that Platinum Equities spies are out to destroy our investors' cohesiveness by posting garbage. Typical behaviour of scammers who want to steal LPs money.

    Why doesn't PE principals do an honest job? Because they are out to steal LPs money.

    ReplyDelete
  100. To post Sunday March 13, 2011 6.26 AM

    You can't money and profit out of Shariff's ass because all he has for LPs is shit up there!

    Meanwhile, he is enjoying LPs money, hiring expensive lawyers and giving LPs a bunch of BULLSHIT to hold!

    ReplyDelete
  101. No, I am among "those that got paid"

    I was in 926/Parallel, the payout was not significantly different than the projection.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Different time and different circumstances on that payout in early 2007.
    The market was "hot" and there definitely were no extra mortgages/debt placed on the properties sold back then were there or strong anchor tenants inappropriately released prematurely from leasing obligations to move to a building owned and managed by Riaz Mamdani?
    Did you know those previous Platinum LP properties were sold to Riaz Mamdani (Strategic)?
    Did you know with one of the buildings that Mamdani was also the vendor to Platinum/investors in 2005 as well as the purchaser who placed an offer in 2006 and ultimately bought the building in early 2007?
    I believe the payout on that sale was significantly less than what the GP represented it would be.
    You most certainly could not have been an investor in the Barron Building project also sold to Riaz Mamdani thorugh a #'d company in 2008.
    Investors there are still "hanging in limbo" with no resolution and no money three years later are they not?
    Seems like you are comparing apples to oranges here but there are certainly striking similarities in other regards.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I am simply speaking of my experiences, no reason to attack me over that. Yes there may be differences now, but I still think it is worth noting how that situation turned out with Platinum back then.

    I believe I do remember that Strategic was the buyer, that is not a concern to me because I made a very good return.

    ReplyDelete
  104. The format of the blog limits the size of each posting so I am splitting my letter to Venti into 2 parts.

    Letter to Venti Part 1
    (no response from them to date)


    I am writing in response to your letters to the Shareholders of Qualia Investments Ltd., dated March 1, 2011 and March 8, 2011.
    In your March 1, 2011 letter you wrote: “should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact our office”. I do have some questions and wish to have them addressed on an urgent basis as your letter of March 8, 2011 suggests a vote on a Special Resolution must be taken by March 25, 2011.
    You further wrote, in the March 1, 2011 letter:
    “A formal notice of general meeting of the Limited Partners of Partnership will be circulated shortly to discuss and vote on the following items:
    1. The offers to purchase:
    2. A proposed additional capital contribution for Sunpark Plaza:
    3. A five-year audit of the Partnership’s records;
    4. The general affairs of the Partnership”
    To date no such meeting has been called. Section 8.6 of the Limited Partnership Agreement, dated April 11,2006, regarding Notice of Meetings, states: “notice shall be mailed at least ten (10) days and not more than twenty-one (21) days before the meeting”. In order for the meeting, proposed in the March 1, 2011 letter, to occur prior to the suggested vote on the Special Resolution, such notice must be mailed today. Please advise if that is to occur, and if not, why not? I note that many of the Limited Partners, including me, have been requesting a general meeting since December 2010.
    What is the status of the Statement of Claim against Sundance Place II Ltd.?



    /2
    -2-

    With regard to your letter of March 8, 2011 I have the following concerns:
    Why are you trivializing Limited Partners rights and concerns by suggesting that a mail in vote, on sales with a combined value of Thirty Two million dollars, in lieu of proper due diligence and open discussion amongst the Limited Partners, is adequate to conclude this business?
    Why are you failing to call the General Meeting, which you advised Limited Partners you would call, scheduled in your March 1, 2011 letter?
    Why are you accounting for $675,000.00 commissions on unsolicited offers?
    Who will this commission be payable to?
    Which legal firm will be representing the Partnership in these transactions?
    Has the legal firm provided a written proposal outlining the disposition of the $320,000.00 fee?
    What is the $150,000.00 expenditure for an audit?
    Why is there an audit?
    Who will conduct this audit?
    How long will this audit take? (I cannot see how it can be done prior to condition removal)
    What is the “Return of Reserve Funds” in the amount of $489,212.00? We are not a strata corporation and as such have no requirement to fund a Reserve.
    Why are we even considering unsolicited offers which, by your advice given in January 2011, will be lowball offers?
    If in fact the Limited Partners want to sell either or both of the subject properties, why aren’t we listing them for sale, thereby providing access to all potential buyers?
    Are any of the current offering parties, their officers, directors or shareholders, related in any way to any companies in which your or any of your staff are either officers, directors or shareholders?
    If any of the current offers are worthy of consideration, why are we treating them as a package when they are apparently separate and unique?
    Why aren’t we having a discussion on the merits of selling either building alone?


    /3

    ReplyDelete
  105. Letter to Venti Part 2
    (no response from them to date)

    -3-
    What is the status of the $5,750,000.00 mortgage on the Pemberton building, registered in November, 2010, in favour of Robert Lee Ltd.?
    Why isn’t this mortgage included in the Appendix A “Sale Calculation Scenario”?
    Why does the line item “Distributions Received to Date” show a figure of $9,311.00, while I have only received $7,367.00?
    How can any proposed transaction occur, when according to your reports, the Partnership’s bank accounts have been frozen by Revenue Canada?

    I trust you can answer these questions for me in a timely manner. Please respect the rights, both legal and moral, of the Limited Partners. I look forward to receiving my “Notice of Meeting” in the next few days.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Sorry but Part 1 didn't post. This blog limits the size of posts so I had to send this letter, which I sent to Venti, in 2 parts.

    Letter to Venti, Part 1
    (no response to date)


    March 15, 2011
    VENTI INVESTMENT CORPORATION
    910-906 12th. Avenue SW
    Calgary, Alberta T2R 1K7

    ATTENTION: Shariff Chandran
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing in response to your letters to the Shareholders of Qualia Investments Ltd., dated March 1, 2011 and March 8, 2011.
    In your March 1, 2011 letter you wrote: “should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact our office”. I do have some questions and wish to have them addressed on an urgent basis as your letter of March 8, 2011 suggests a vote on a Special Resolution must be taken by March 25, 2011.
    You further wrote, in the March 1, 2011 letter:
    “A formal notice of general meeting of the Limited Partners of Partnership will be circulated shortly to discuss and vote on the following items:
    1. The offers to purchase:
    2. A proposed additional capital contribution for Sunpark Plaza:
    3. A five-year audit of the Partnership’s records;
    4. The general affairs of the Partnership”
    To date no such meeting has been called. Section 8.6 of the Limited Partnership Agreement, dated April 11,2006, regarding Notice of Meetings, states: “notice shall be mailed at least ten (10) days and not more than twenty-one (21) days before the meeting”. In order for the meeting, proposed in the March 1, 2011 letter, to occur prior to the suggested vote on the Special Resolution, such notice must be mailed today. Please advise if that is to occur, and if not, why not? I note that many of the Limited Partners, including me, have been requesting a general meeting since December 2010.
    What is the status of the Statement of Claim against Sundance Place II Ltd.?



    /2
    -2-

    With regard to your letter of March 8, 2011 I have the following concerns:
    Why are you trivializing Limited Partners rights and concerns by suggesting that a mail in vote, on sales with a combined value of Thirty Two million dollars, in lieu of proper due diligence and open discussion amongst the Limited Partners, is adequate to conclude this business?
    Why are you failing to call the General Meeting, which you advised Limited Partners you would call, scheduled in your March 1, 2011 letter?
    Why are you accounting for $675,000.00 commissions on unsolicited offers?
    Who will this commission be payable to?
    Which legal firm will be representing the Partnership in these transactions?
    Has the legal firm provided a written proposal outlining the disposition of the $320,000.00 fee?
    What is the $150,000.00 expenditure for an audit?
    Why is there an audit?
    Who will conduct this audit?
    How long will this audit take? (I cannot see how it can be done prior to condition removal)
    What is the “Return of Reserve Funds” in the amount of $489,212.00? We are not a strata corporation and as such have no requirement to fund a Reserve.
    Why are we even considering unsolicited offers which, by your advice given in January 2011, will be lowball offers?
    If in fact the Limited Partners want to sell either or both of the subject properties, why aren’t we listing them for sale, thereby providing access to all potential buyers?
    Are any of the current offering parties, their officers, directors or shareholders, related in any way to any companies in which your or any of your staff are either officers, directors or shareholders?
    If any of the current offers are worthy of consideration, why are we treating them as a package when they are apparently separate and unique?
    Why aren’t we having a discussion on the merits of selling either building alone?


    /3

    ReplyDelete
  107. When Platinum Equities principals create a cash call, they want the money immediately and they never confirm what they do with the money.

    When Limited Partners have questions concerning their investment money in Platinum Equities, the principals and GP do not respond. They refuse to communicate or they give you a bunch of lies to hold.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Shariff Chandran, NO MORE MONEY IS COMING FROM LIMITED PARTNERS until you pay up to the LIMITED PARTNERS what is righteously due to us, our principal plus profit.

    You have disrespected, ill-treated and trivialized the Limited Partners and we are all fed up of you and your scams.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I suggest that anything posted here by "anonymous" be ignored. It is too easy to sink to name-calling and such when there is no responsibility for your words. It is also difficult to tell who is saying what in response to whom. If you have something worth saying, have the courage to sign your name to it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. To Dale Ramsbottom's post Friday March 18, 2011 7.24 PM,

    If you read the Jennifer Logren's saga with Shire Real Estate Investments, she stated that when her bonds in Shire were due, she initially did not receive the principal and interest back. Subsequently, when she repeatedly tried calling Shire, there was no communication back to her from Shire. Shire then filed for banruptcy.

    Sir, you must recognize scams when you hear one.

    ReplyDelete
  111. It is so funny when I think about the word ACCIDENTLY. So the mortgage of $5,750,000.00 on the Pemberton is ACCIDENTLY!

    THINK ABOUT IT!

    ReplyDelete
  112. so it seems there is a huge issue saying there is a secondary mortgage against one of the properties. Care to post it ? Or give everyone access to this so called documentation ? It does cost $ to do the search and if someone has already done it, it would be great if others wouldn't have to pay again to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. This mortgage was registered in the New Westminster (B.C.) Land Title Office, on November 12, 2010. The borrower is 744 West Hastings Ltd., address 910, 906-12th ave SW, Calgary, Alberta. and it's authorized signatory is Srivivasan Chandran. The solicitor for the borrower is Derek R. Elliott of Bishop & Mckenzie, Calgary, Alberta.

    The lender is Robert Lee Ltd. address 517-1177 West Hastings St., Vancover, B.C. The solicitor for the lender is Clark Wilson LLP, 800-885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. attn: David W. Kington

    ReplyDelete
  114. Sriviviasan Chandran is not a member of the management team of Platinum Equities. Venti Invesetment Corporation is the general partner of the Sunpark Building, and has a right to get an additional mortgage under the approval of the limited partners. Based on this information, 744 West Hastings Ltd. used the Platinum Equities address and put a mortgage on our building. This seems like a big problem.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I agree it is a big problem!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Who is Srivivasan Chandran? Why is his signature authorized on the transaction? Another alias of someone on the management team?

    Hope this BIG MYSTERY unfolds!

    ReplyDelete
  117. We all hate this mess. That is why Platinum Equities should be held accountable and fully disclose each and every one of these transactions of Limited Partners money!

    ReplyDelete
  118. If Srivivasan Chandran is not a member of the management team, then his signature should not be on any transactions that require authority.

    I hope people would stop playing games with other peoples' money and be forthright about the transactions.

    It only goes to show that a lot smells fishy about Platinum Equities. They stink of rotten fish!

    ReplyDelete
  119. Who says that the GP of PE can take additional mortgages without full accountability and full disclosure to Limited Partners' monies?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Why is 744 West Hastings Ltd Limited Partners' money getting mixed up with those of Sunpark/Pemberton's money by the GPs?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Just three days left before the vote and we are still in the dark. How could we vote yes when everyday we find out new things about GP?

    ReplyDelete
  122. it's in the contract we signed. As a GP, they are allowed to do anything to run operations. Otherwise, if every single business decision requires an approval from the LPs, then nothing would get done in a timely manner. That is why we are "limited" partners. As in we have to accept watever they decide is good for the portfolio. We should still have a yearly general meeting to go over their decisions for the past year and have the option to vote in another GP if the LP doesn't think he is doing a good job. However, no guarantees that the new GP won't take out more mortgages against the property if there is a cash shortfall i.e. no one paying up the cash call.

    ReplyDelete
  123. That is pure rubbish and a ripoff to those Limited Partners who invests solely in one PE project and have to pay for another project. If the GP managed the Limited Partners funds appropriately as per GAAP, (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), none of this bullshit would occur. Only dark figures and minds do things like that. Consequently, Limited Partners should get a refund of their monies plus accrued earnings on their invested funds.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Running your business taking out mortgages without Limited Partners' knowledge and approval on a timely basis,(another GAAP principle), is tantamount to poor accounting, poor accountability, poor integrity, poor disclosure, poor eveything!

    ReplyDelete
  125. Srivivasan Chandran aka. S.H. Chandran aka.Sri Chandran aka. Shariff Chandran aka also known as CEO of Platinum Equities Inc and GP to all LP Investments within the Platinum umbrella and CEO of Leben Reit.
    As per Alberta Securities Commission

    ReplyDelete
  126. u may not agree and GAAP aside, didn't your lawyer go over the agreement you are signing before you committed all that $ ? That maybe malpractice on their part...

    ReplyDelete
  127. I haven't decided either way .. 2 much hearsay, not enough facts and PE not answering inquiries is not good enough. What do we get if we vote NO ? Are we stuck w/him as GP for now ? Are we going to get hit w/a cash call and what if we don't pay ? The $ is all still there so if i vote yes do i get a chance at having some of my $ back ? What's the worst that could happen if i voted yes ? By some miracle, if we did say yes and sold...i might get my investment back and if not, then im in no worse position than i am now ? Inquiring minds wana know !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  128. This is musical chairs, we continue to listen to the wiseman/lawyers in this group we are going to get caught with no chair when the music stops! Let us have some common sense, a sale gets our money back and out from Chandron and Mamdani.

    ReplyDelete
  129. To Posting March 21, 2011 11.45 AM

    We have to sue the lawyer, your salesmen and you for your ripoff business practices.

    ReplyDelete
  130. To Sri, S.H., Shariff, Srivivasan, be sure to show at your trials to answer questions about your shady transactions and transactions which do not conform to GAAP.

    Or else, there will be more contempts of court by the judges.

    ReplyDelete
  131. this clearly shows shariff is a fighter and won't back down..the courts finds him in contempt, does that get your $ ? It will be more long and stress ful years while you fight him and the lawyers get rich ... go ask the lawyer how much the court fights cost if u go even 1yr. Your $ will end up allll w/the lawyers...go ask how u have to pay, they will tell you that it won't come from the settlement, you are paying hourly ... more stress and more $ coming from you all the time ..at the end, you end up shortening your life and losing all your investment ... read the other blogs, has anyone even gotten any results ? And how long have they been fighting ? Don't get caught up in emotions...think w/your heads .. there is what is right and what is reality in court ... look at all those pplz at Enron, they all went to jail and the investors got no money back ... for me, i would rather have a chance at the $ instead of looking for justice. Justice comes at a price...YOUR INVESTMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  132. to Tuesday, March 22, 6:44am. How does giving sharriff contemmpt of court get us our $ ? If no one buys because we are all in court fighting, what happens to your investment ? You do know if you combine both buildings, it is not operating in the positive, so who's going to pay for the monthly maintenance ? US THE INVESTORS...maybe you want the buildings to go into receivership so your group can buy them cheap ? Maybe you are stirring up conflict to get a depressed sale eh ? Are you working for CBRE ? Colliers maybe representing the buyers ?

    ReplyDelete
  133. To Tuesday March 22, 2011 7.35 & 7.39 AM Postings

    We, Limited Partner investors, have to be fighters too, however, it depends on if some people have more to hide about their shady and dark dealings.

    Do you have anything shady and dark to hide?

    ReplyDelete
  134. We are fighters. No to sale.

    ReplyDelete
  135. you must be working for the law firms. yes to sale. fight w/your own $/time.

    ReplyDelete
  136. You must be working for Chandran. No to sale.

    ReplyDelete
  137. im working to get my $41k out. U all must have more $ than common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  138. You're delusional if you think your getting 41k. Those numbers don't take into consideration the 5.75 million mortgage Chandran took out in Nov. 2010. Please use your common sense! Keep living in denial. It's people like you who benefit from the guts and money of others who fight for justice.

    ReplyDelete
  139. You are the delusional one as you don't think the contract applies to you. LEGALLY, you are bound to a cash call, look it up in the contract terms. If you can't read english, then consult a lawyer. Or a law student, they are free if you can't afford a few hours. I will be laughing if and when the NO vote goes through and the collectors come calling. Unless you are like PE and have tons of $ and have lawyers on retainers to fight them on it. I have had a response from Steve and the final $41k refund does include the payout of the other mortgage. Don't make things up, just call/email him or sharriff and ask them. Don't hurt other investors w/your fear.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Hey I just want my money out! if you wanna fight him go ahead on your own time. Take civil action, if he really want to screw and scam you why he even bothering to send you these sales offers etc. after reading some of the posts, there is a select bunch that are just not thinking straight!

    ReplyDelete
  141. He already screwed and scammed the limited partners and still doing them. He only pretends to be good because he already spent our money on his personal, his family and his co-conspirators benefits and if he could get his hands on more, he would!

    ReplyDelete
  142. so if you think he already screw you and scam you, leaving your money there is a solution? saying no to sale is the solution? having to put more cash into the building is a solution? You guy says he did this and that, well then why do you want to leave your money in there any longer? If there is a chance to take your money out, won't you want to? Everyone thinks they are owe this and that....well shit sometimes happen and you just have to go with the flow and stop this nonsense whining and blaming other people!

    ReplyDelete
  143. Ask yourself this those voting NO, if you knew all this stuff before hand would you STILL give him your $50k ? If you answered NO then this is your chance to sell it. If you said yes, then boy have i got a good deal on a bridge for the rest of your $$$.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Can any of you guarantee that will we be able to get our principal and interest back? NO Right? We are not only getting screw by PE we are also getting screw by our own investors that want to pursue this never ending saga. I just want an end to this mess and move one! At least PE is offering a glimpse of hope that I might get some of my money back, but the ones that are wanting to sue and drag this out and just giving me absolutely nothing but pain to know that I will need to fork out more money with NO GUARANTEE of a return!

    ReplyDelete
  145. Just for your information, you are dreaming if you think you can get $41k back.

    ReplyDelete
  146. So a NO sale will get my money back? Think about what you are saying and doing! So leaving it with PE and having to fork out more money will get my $41K back? At least I get a glimmer of hope with PE returning some portion of our money if the sale goes thru....but a no sale would mean having to put up with more PE crap and non common sense investors! Stop holding my money hostage!

    ReplyDelete
  147. its too bad that no one in the Sunpark email chain that is circulating understands how a tenant improvement allowance works.
    It is a negoiable(sp?) item!!The tenant might pay, the landlord might pay, they may share the cost. If the landlord pays the TI, rent may be more. if the tenant pays it, rent could be less, longer term etc-Its all subject to negotiation folks!!

    For those not aware-its a buyers market!! A tenant has a choice of buildings to go to, so lets not negotiate and they have to pay their own TI...DUH!!!
    Also read your agreement-a No vote means we pay a cash call. If we don't sell and don't "feed" the investment how can you be so naive to think we won't lose the buildings.Have you delt with a lender recently??
    Wake up people-vote yes, save the cash calls,lawyer and receiver fees. We'll have nothing left for sure.I'm taking my $40,000.
    I refuse to follow everyone that has all of a sudden become a real estate expert-most don't understand the most basic thing in commercial real estate-how a TI works
    Anyone thinking they will get their principal back is dreaming in technicolor.

    PS ask a Shire or Concrete investor if they would have taken $40,000 of a $50,000 investment.

    ReplyDelete
  148. i agree. dont be fools. when you have the $40k in ur hands, then decide if u want to throw $10k of it at a lawyer to get "justice". I bet most of you will walk away.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I absolutely do not agree. You would be fools if you believe you will receive $41k.

    ReplyDelete
  150. The only thing stopping us from receiving the $41K would be investors like you who is saying NO to sale! We are at the mercy of fools like you!

    ReplyDelete
  151. You work for Chandran!

    ReplyDelete
  152. From whom did they buy these overpriced properties from, was there conflict of interest??????? did they make money when we bought these properties????

    this should be looked into. did they make money on our losses. shut down vancouver office, we cant pay their rents and shut down toronto office. Where did they get their salaries from?
    we dont make money!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  153. Guys, ask yourself? are you willing to pay a dollar for a penny?

    Think!!

    ReplyDelete
  154. As an investor, I can understand why certain people are freaking out here, however I am not going to join them.

    I just don't think that they would circulate a document estimate 41,000 and then having it only be 20,000. I could see it being 39,000 or 40,000 but not significantly less as some are suggesting.

    I agree there are some matters being discussed here that I would like more information on, however at the end of the day I have invested in 5 projects with this company and so far have done very well. I have concerns too, which is why I found this blog but I think I am better off not overreacting.

    The only thing I can say with any certainty, is that if investors turn this into a legal mess, we will not ever receive anything close to 41,000. We may be lucky enough to ge 5,000 some day down the road, and I am not even confident in that.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Just because I dont agree with you, I'm automatically working for Chandran, see what I mean about fools! You are accusing of anyone that want OUT to be working for Chandran, do you think anyone of them have the time or give a shit about this? HE HAS OUR MONEY, don't you GET IT! He doesn't care if we VOTE YES or NO. HE doesn't lose anything! We are the ONES! Tell me what is the advantage of a NO sale? What do you gain in leaving your money in there? Go online, read the stories of Concrete and Shire, they are getting pennies back on their initial investment.
    Maybe YOU ARE WORKING FOR CHANDRAN, because you want our MONEY there!

    ReplyDelete
  156. I don't accuse anyone. But you work for Chandran.

    ReplyDelete
  157. first u don't want to vote yes because it's a low ball offer...then u don't want to vote yes because it's only for one bldg..now we have a reasonable chance to get out w/most of our $ and you STILL say no. Before you blame shariff, look in the mirror and blame the person looking back for getting into this situation in the first place. This is your chance to lose minimal and get out if this investment style is not for you. Even if it's a scam, why would he send that out ? Why bother ? This is also going through an external sales agency and has to go through the banking system. Do you think he is that powerful that he can tell the banks and Colliers/CBRE what to do ? Why even bother and not just fold up his company and then we all get $0. THINK ABOUT IT. He is not ASKING you for cash call, he is OFFERING to give u back some of your $ and put an end to our suffering. VOTE YES !!! What could it hurt ? You still don't have your $ anyway and this is a CHANCE to get it back.

    ReplyDelete
  158. let me ask all you negative pplz, those voting NO, have you EVEN asked a lawyer his opinion ? If you don't want to spend the $, find a law professor at a university and ask them what they think about your situation.

    ReplyDelete
  159. you maybe work for lawyer and stop our sale...maybe you are paid yes ? you get commission when every1 gives u their monies... you are spy and wen we want a meeting, you will suggest your law firm...u want everyone money maybe go to your law firm so you get bonus...proof yourselve you dont work for them.

    ReplyDelete
  160. OMG, did you just really write that! I can't believe I'm stuck in this situation with IMBECILE like you! GO CHECK YOUR HEAD!

    ReplyDelete
  161. see ? u no deny..always pushing for NO..u do must work for law firm....i will not make u and ur sons rich...i am vote to get my money out...thank you for confirming your firm are the real crook

    ReplyDelete
  162. You are calling investors imbecile because they want to vote NO!

    ReplyDelete
  163. Look guys. Chandran is to blame for all this fighting because he is scamming limited partners. He takes all the money, while you are fighting amongs yourselves. Riaz walks away with the assets, buildings and land. Chandran takes our cash and we, limited partners are broke.

    That is who to blame, Sri, Srivivasan, Shariff and S.H. Chandran.

    ReplyDelete
  164. how is he scamming ? If he is, he wouldn't need to go through all these charades to create a buyer's offer. He wouldn't need to get colliers or CBRE involved. He would just fold up his company, declare bankruptcy and go vacation. It makes no sense for him to do all this work, get webinars going, devote all this time and he hasn't asked you for more money. Please back yourself up instead of guessing. This investment is for educated investors. Who let you in ?

    ReplyDelete
  165. To Posting Friday March 25, 2011 7.37 AM

    Ask people who bought into the Leben REIT project if they got a profit from the sale of the REIT to Whiterock REIT back in 2008.

    Why is Lucaya not yet developed and is a pile of rubble after how many years? What about the Lucaya investors money?

    Why is there so many mortgages on a project after it is bought and has not yet been approved?

    Why are limited partner investors not given honest and forthright answers about how their investment money is being managed?

    We don't care how much he goes to colliers or CBRE to find out the real estate investment market performance.

    Even if he declares bankruptcy and go on vacation, he would not get very far to enjoy this money.

    You must be working for and / or getting paid by S.H. Chandran.

    ReplyDelete
  166. The sale of the Leben REIT to Whiterock REIT made a profit of $81 million to Platinum Equities in 2008.

    Where is the profit to Limited Partners?

    ReplyDelete
  167. Ask people who bought into the Leben REIT project if they got a profit from the sale of the REIT to Whiterock REIT back in 2008.
    - I don't care i didnt buy that one. Stop confusing the issue and generating fear.

    Why is Lucaya not yet developed and is a pile of rubble after how many years? What about the Lucaya investors money?
    - see above

    Why is there so many mortgages on a project after it is bought and has not yet been approved?
    - Did you even read the contract ? The GP has the right to manage the project as he sees fit, doesn't need LP approval. Get a magnifying glass if your eyes can't see it.

    Why are limited partner investors not given honest and forthright answers about how their investment money is being managed?
    - Have you asked to go see it for yourself in the office ? Are you a CGA ? Do you even know what the numbers mean ?

    We don't care how much he goes to colliers or CBRE to find out the real estate investment market performance.
    - You should because our buildings are listed for sale by those companies. Bury your head in the sand that's why you make no sense.

    Even if he declares bankruptcy and go on vacation, he would not get very far to enjoy this money.
    - He doesn't have to go anywhere and can still screw you. You are too stubborn to have common sense.

    You must be working for and / or getting paid by S.H. Chandran
    - You must be working for the lawyers and enjoying creating confusion to further your salary.

    ReplyDelete
  168. It's easy to attack what you don't understand...it seems like a lot of you don't understand what you got into. Consult a lawyer and get an unbiased, 3rd party opinion. You will sleep easier at night. Like all investments, there is inherent risk. Things do not always work out the way we all want. That is reality and not scams. Scams is when they take your money and leave no forwarding address.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Well then, give back our principal and earnings
    and we will walk away from these stupid, ripoff investments!

    ReplyDelete
  170. To Friday March 25, 2011 1.08 PM posting

    Why did you not answer the question about the non-distribution of $81 million profit from the sale of the Leben REIT to Whiterock REIT?

    You must have gotten some kickbacks, too!

    ReplyDelete
  171. He did not answer because he is working for Shariff Chandran.

    ReplyDelete
  172. To Friday March 25, 2011 3.28 PM posting.

    Right On!!!

    Regarding Friday March 25, 2011 1.08 PM posting.
    He said he did not buy any of the Leben REIT nor Lucaya investments. Thus he has none of his precious money at risk like Limited Partners. So he is talking up his ASS, however, he is getting paid from Limited Partners invested money and he is rude to us, Limited Partners.

    So, he can go to hell like the GP!

    ReplyDelete
  173. I find it very troubling that the ones that believe they are being rip off or scam are the ones that want to vote NO sale. If you believe that you are being scam or rip off wouldn't you want to take your money out ASAP? But instead you choose to continue to leave it there and potentially have to give more to PE? What sense does that make. And anytime someone want to vote YES, they are automatically accuse of working for Sharriff or is Sharriff. This just goes to show the maturity level of these investors. The posting of the NO voters, does NOT make any sense to me at all. Do you really think scammers will return your principal + profit? They are SCAMMERS like you said! What is your plan on keeping the projects with PE? Sue him? Good luck! You have to know we are at the bottom of the totem pole, any money we get is whatever is left after everything is paid to all those mortgages, creditors, laywers....etc. Ask any of the investors that were scam from Ponsi schemes, or Concrete, or Shire...what they got out of their investment. I would say next to NIL. If we continue to leave our MONEY in there thats what we will end up with too....NOTHING!

    ReplyDelete
  174. To Posting Friday March 25, 2011 1.08PM

    Just remember who is paying your salary. It is not Chandran, it is the Limited Partners. We are paying Chandran too, except he wants to keep it all to himself, his family and his co-conspirators.

    ReplyDelete
  175. To Friday March 25, 2011 1.13PM

    Scams is not just leaving without an address. Check out Concrete Equities and Shire Real Estate Investments. Did they leave with no forwarding address? What you said is a lot of bull!

    That goes to show you have a narrow mind with tunnel vision.

    ReplyDelete
  176. To Friday March 25, 2011 1.13PM

    Also that is why you work for Chandran. You have the qualifications of a narrow mind with tunnel vision not to see or you don't want to see. Only your paycheck you want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  177. To Friday March 25, 2011 1.13PM

    We all understand inherent risk from economic conditions but not from fraudulent management, which we did not fully expect to this extent, until we put our money into this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  178. http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/english/stopit_faq.html#howtoreport

    Reporting Scams and Frauds

    If you have not lost any money and have not provided personal or financial information (relating to a fraud or scam), and you simply want to inform the appropriate organizations, report it to the Canadian Anti-fraud Centre by calling 1-888-495-8501

    If you received a fraudulent e-mail soliciting personal or financial information (phishing scam), you should also advise the financial institution or other agency whose name was used.

    If you are a victim of fraud or if you unwittingly provided personal or financial information (identity fraud), follow the steps in our Victim Assistance Guide.

    If you are a victim of fraud and it is not related to identity fraud, contact the police service of jurisdiction in your area.

    Always report fraud to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre at info@antifraudcentre.ca or by dialing 1-888-495-8501 or on-line by visiting the CAFC website.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Anonymous said...

    I'm not sure if there are investors in Lucaya that are involved in the Dominion or Sunpark/Pemberton projects, but following this blog it seems to me Platinum Equities management have a history of putting second mortgages on these properties, either "accidentally" like Platinum say's or more likely as a way to keep their investment schemes rolling. So the question I have to fellow Lucaya investors is, has anyone done a title search on the Lucaya property to see if this is what Platinum has done with this project as well? I think we may have gotten ironically lucky with the contractor placing liens on the building, but since those were supposedly cleared over six months ago, the management at Platinum might have had an opportunity to accidentally place a second mortgage on this property. Either way I'm quite disheartened by what I see unfolding in the Dominion and Sunpark projects. Its one thing to lose money on a bad investment if the market goes against you but to lose your money based on possibly fraudulent management is something else entirely!
    Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:25:00 PM

    ReplyDelete
  180. 81 Million dollars in Profit?????????????????????

    Does the person who posted this even know the definition of the word "profit"?

    Please advise how you calculated 81 Million dollars in profit?

    ReplyDelete
  181. To Sunday March 27, 2011 5.41PM Posting

    Why don't you explain the $81 million you got from Whiterock REIT to your Limited Partners?
    They deserve an accurate, honest, forthright and detailed breakdown to the last penny.

    You are ripping off your Limited Partners.

    ReplyDelete
  182. To All Sunpark / Pemberton Limited Partners

    We must not believe anything we hear from our GP!
    Instead of having him removed and replaced, we should hire a lawyer and forensic accountant to audit like the Dominion Limited Partners because he has shady transactions to hide.

    Do not just sit and accept anything we hear from our GP.

    He has his own interests of keeping our invested money. Do not believe in his lies!

    ReplyDelete
  183. To Sunday March 27, 2011 5.41PM Posting

    When you do provide an explanation to your Limited Partners, you must also provide in hard copy the proof of each transaction.


    Thereby, then and only then, would anyone believe a word you said.

    ReplyDelete
  184. This guy is a compulsive liar, only way to get our money is to go after it. Plain and simple. I agree with another poster, if you are approached join the group and fight this criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  185. everyone here is saying criminal this, fraudulent that ... has anyone contact the RCMP and see if there's anything that can be done ? We all pay tax $, their wages, let's put them to work !

    ReplyDelete
  186. there are some very intelligent/estute people in the email chain. Unfortunately for every one of them there are 10 idiots.
    Those that send an email to a hundred people saying "I agree" etc
    Those hanging on the shirttails of others, complaining (not having a clue what they are talking about) and expecting the handful of people that have stepped up to do everything.
    Its over folks - the vote went thru.In simple english-the silent majority chose to sell.
    Now if you don't get your ~$40,000 I guess thats another issue for another time.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Excellent !! Those that voted NO should have their $ split amongst those that voted YES...then let them sue PE for their $ back as they are hell bent on hiring lawyers...

    ReplyDelete
  188. To Friday, April 01,2011 10:43:00 am

    It is $41,000 per unit not $40,000. Unless those who voted Yes want to give more money to Chandran.

    ReplyDelete
  189. the symbol ~ means approximately-the pettiness of this site is incredible

    ReplyDelete
  190. agreed, uneducated buffoons should not be allowed to invest.

    ReplyDelete
  191. To Sunday April 03, 2011 1.35 AM Posting

    Maybe you are an educated buffoon who is a fraudster and scammer!

    ReplyDelete
  192. To Sunday, April 03,2011 8:09:00AM

    Excellent Answer!! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  193. Isn't it interesting that we always know when it's Chandran and his gang of 2 posting. They're the only ones who feel the need to be superior and insult investors.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Want to call the ASC (Alberta Securities Commision)?
    Nicole Chiu (spelling) 403-297-41111

    They are more than interested to hear your complaints.

    ReplyDelete
  195. I find it hard to believe that more than 75% of limited partners voted yes to sell.

    ReplyDelete
  196. It is a travesty that these people are not being brought to justice. As time goes on and they are not punished, they will just keep scamming more people who know nothing about them and invest in their schemes.

    ReplyDelete
  197. To Wednesday April 06,2011 6:21:00 PM

    You are right. It is hard to believe that more than %75 of investors voted yes to sell. There is no way to verify this!

    ReplyDelete
  198. Those invested in Sunpark / Pemberton should get in touch with their steering committee leader to confirm if they voted yes. This can be done via email or phone. Check with fellow members to get a count of those who voted yes.

    We cannot trust anything Chandran says because all that comes out his mouth are a pack of lies!

    ReplyDelete
  199. Check out Lucaya blog site where he stopped the Lucaya development because he took out so many mortgages of Limited Partners money, that the CIBC refused to further finance the development!

    This situation calls for a legal team for Limited Partners and depositors who paid down their money on that Lucaya project!

    Maybe you need a legal team too to deal with Chandran!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.