John Mendoza said:
I don't want to jump to any conclusions but if PWC says Sam has taken the money then I think Sam needs a better defence than I stole money because I got a threatening call from my partner's dad. Or maybe he thinks it's ok to take the money because his partner's father is a fugitive. I don't think that's going to work either.
Click to expand...

Good thing those aren't his defences.

I'm also glad to hear you're not jumping to any conclusions. Unless you've read it in detail and with knowledge about the validity of the underlying assumptions, the only conclusion you can jump to on the mere existence of the PWC report being obtained by the plaintiffs is that Mizrahi will obtain a report by one of their competitors (KPMG, EY, Deloitte or a boutique forensic accounting firm) that will say the opposite of whatever is in the PWC report.
 
Here's a link to the decision in a preliminary motion regarding Mizrahi's lawsuit with the Khavaris:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc101/2016onsc101.pdf

This was a decision on a motion to have a declaration that the relationship between Mizrahi and his investors was a trust. The investors lost and Mizrahi was awarded $30k for his legal costs. Presumably the case will still head to trial.

There is some interesting information in there, and I won't dissect it all. It seems that the Khavaris have already taken $7,000,000 from Mizrahi prior to being entitled to that payment, and are looking for an early return on the rest of their investment. The judge who heard this motion was far more sympathetic to and inclined to believe Mizrahi than the Khavaris.
 
Ottawan said:
Good thing those aren't his defences.

I'm also glad to hear you're not jumping to any conclusions. Unless you've read it in detail and with knowledge about the validity of the underlying assumptions, the only conclusion you can jump to on the mere existence of the PWC report being obtained by the plaintiffs is that Mizrahi will obtain a report by one of their competitors (KPMG, EY, Deloitte or a boutique forensic accounting firm) that will say the opposite of whatever is in the PWC report.
Click to expand...

Well you are right. Mizrahi did obtain another report from Duff and Phelps. Only one problem. They also concluded that he took $19,000,000 from the project monies. They play with the numbers to reduce this amount and say they were told by Mizrahi's lawyers that the monies drawn were for project expenses but they were not given any backup documents to support this. It is strange that Mizrahi submitted this report into court.

I've got my reading for the long weekend.
 
Ottawan said:
Here's a link to the decision in a preliminary motion regarding Mizrahi's lawsuit with the Khavaris:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc101/2016onsc101.pdf

This was a decision on a motion to have a declaration that the relationship between Mizrahi and his investors was a trust. The investors lost and Mizrahi was awarded $30k for his legal costs. Presumably the case will still head to trial.

There is some interesting information in there, and I won't dissect it all. It seems that the Khavaris have already taken $7,000,000 from Mizrahi prior to being entitled to that payment, and are looking for an early return on the rest of their investment. The judge who heard this motion was far more sympathetic to and inclined to believe Mizrahi than the Khavaris.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this. I think Khavaris brought this motion on "assumed facts". I discussed it with a friend of mine who's a lawyer this morning over coffee and he says Khavaris asked the judge to assume everything Mizrahi says is true for the purpose of this motion and make a decision. He says Khavaris lawyers must have thought that the judge would apply the law of trust which would make anything Mizrahi had to say true or false irrelevant but that's not what the judge did. I'm not a lawyer but I think that was a very stupid move, although my friend disagrees and says it could have ended a lengthy trial. Now it will be a few years before the trial is done.
 
John Mendoza said:
Seems like court files will be available on this site soon. www.MizrahiSam.com
Click to expand...

I've really gotta take your posts with a huge grain of salt. You're a new poster, have only ever posted in this thread, all posts somewhat negative about Mizrahi and now you're linking to a site that's been created (quite obviously) with the intent of discrediting him.

I'm not any huge fan of Mizrahi, but you're hitting every play out of "the beginner's guide to internet hatchet jobs and winning in the court of public opinion". When someone suddenly appears with a wealth of (negative) knowledge about someone or some thing, they usually have their own axe to grind with the subject.

Seriously.

Cui bono?
 
Last edited:
John Mendoza said:
Thank you for sharing this. I think Khavaris brought this motion on "assumed facts". I discussed it with a friend of mine who's a lawyer this morning over coffee and he says Khavaris asked the judge to assume everything Mizrahi says is true for the purpose of this motion and make a decision. He says Khavaris lawyers must have thought that the judge would apply the law of trust which would make anything Mizrahi had to say true or false irrelevant but that's not what the judge did. I'm not a lawyer but I think that was a very stupid move, although my friend disagrees and says it could have ended a lengthy trial. Now it will be a few years before the trial is done.
Click to expand...
It seems that they don't have a leg to stand on.
 
Just sounds like Mizrahi has found himself involved with some unsavory folks, and wants nothing to do with them.
Who are you going to side with? someone who faces a death sentence if they return to their country or charismatic Mizrahi? Choice seems obvious.
 
It's pretty reckless to label someone as corrupt based solely on who they did business with once. Suits and counter-suits are a bit of a sport very Very Rich People.

If I had a dollar for every time a real estate developer was sued or sued someone, I could personally finance this damn tower.
 
Without making any judgements on the merits of this particular building or its chances of being constructed, it may be worth taking a critical look at the forces working on the very heated local development market when the man behind one of the city's most prominent projects is a not so long ago Drycleaner to the Stars ("Celebrities, CEOs of multimillion dollar corporations, socialites, and more – as the most recognized high-end dry cleaning provider, we serve the discriminating tastes of the city's most discerning clients, and that includes you.") who has been - maybe knowingly, maybe unknowingly - financed in past projects by embezzled third-world millions.

From Toronto Life:
A few years ago you were known mostly for your dry cleaning business. Now you own one of the most coveted pieces of real estate in the country. How did that happen so fast?

I’ve often been asked what the similarities are between those two businesses. It’s about addressing niches. With Dove Cleaners, we created a premium, high-end, attention-to-detail business. The real estate market that I’ve gone into is the same niche market. It’s the same customer as the Dove customer.
Click to expand...

Eighty storey towers. Dry cleaning. Same difference. Luxury market is the luxury market.
 
No. We must consider his fortune doesn't allow him to build 80 storey towers. He couldn't even afford the $100 million price tag for the property. The only way is to sell off most of the development to capital investors which is full of shady investors and shady investment opportunities for the daytime investor. It's the same for most developers in the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top