Bridging Finance Executives Receive Fines, Bans in Ontario Fraud Case
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Bridging Finance Executives Found Guilty of Massive Investor Fraud
The Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal has ruled that David and Natasha Sharpe, the husband-and-wife team behind Bridging Finance Inc., committed fraud. This verdict arrives two years after Bridging’s collapse, which had left thousands of Canadian investors at a collective loss of over $1 billion. The ruling marks one of the most high-profile financial fraud cases in Canada, underscoring ongoing concerns about regulatory oversight and ethical standards in the alternative finance sector. A hearing to determine the sanctions and potential penalties for the Sharpes and Andrew Mushore is scheduled for December 6. This could result in monetary fines, bans from future involvement in capital markets, and possibly even criminal charges, though legal experts suggest the focus will likely remain on monetary penalties and disqualification from the securities industry. In his analysis on The Deep Dive, Braden Maccke argues that the Bridging case points to a need for tighter regulatory measures in the private debt sector. He argues that without tighter scrutiny, high-risk lending practices could continue to jeopardize investors.
The ruling marks one of the most high-profile financial fraud cases in Canada, underscoring ongoing concerns about regulatory oversight and ethical standards in the alternative finance sector.
In a scathing report released this week, the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal—an independent division of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC)—found that David Sharpe, former CEO of Bridging Finance, and his wife, Natasha Sharpe, who held various executive roles within the company, funneled investor funds toward personal benefits. The Tribunal revealed that the couple received “undisclosed kickbacks” from borrowers to whom they had approved risky, high-interest loans on behalf of Bridging Finance.
Bridging, which managed over $2 billion for investors, has since been under court-ordered receivership, with its remaining assets administered by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC).
PwC, appointed as the receiver in April 2021 following the OSC’s investigation, has estimated investor losses at $1.3 billion—almost two-thirds of the total assets Bridging Finance managed. According to PwC, these losses stemmed from Bridging’s unchecked loans to high-risk borrowers who often struggled to repay, an issue exacerbated by the Sharpes’ practices, which included the acceptance of personal kickbacks and lenient loan terms.
Founded in 2012, Bridging Finance was well-known within the Canadian finance sector for its unique model of providing short-term, high-interest loans to small and mid-sized businesses considered too risky by traditional banks. At its height, the company held $2.09 billion in assets from more than 26,000 investors, who were attracted by Bridging’s promise of high returns amidst a low interest rate environment.
However, the company’s operations unraveled as questions emerged regarding its loan approval process and repayment structures. By early 2021, the OSC had begun a formal investigation, prompted by allegations of financial mismanagement. Evidence mounted that Bridging executives had not only violated financial standards but had also leveraged investor funds to serve personal interests, significantly undercutting the value of the company’s loan portfolio.
Bridging’s decision to allow borrowers to pay in non-cash forms—such as company equity or accrued interest rather than cash—also compounded the firm’s financial instability.
Key Findings and Future Sanctions
In the Tribunal’s findings, the Sharpes were determined to have acted in “bad faith” by using Bridging Finance’s funds to secure benefits for themselves without disclosing these actions to investors. Andrew Mushore, Bridging’s former Chief Compliance Officer, was also found to have “indirectly participated” in the scheme.
The Tribunal criticized the executives’ blatant disregard for investor interests, highlighting the severe impact of their actions on the company’s 26,000 investors, many of whom were retail investors and pensioners seeking stable returns.
A hearing to determine the sanctions and potential penalties for the Sharpes and Mushore is scheduled for December 6. This could result in monetary fines, bans from future involvement in capital markets, and possibly even criminal charges, though legal experts suggest the Tribunal’s focus will likely remain on monetary penalties and disqualification from the securities industry.
The case has drawn attention to Canada’s regulatory landscape, with critics arguing that existing systems lack the transparency and accountability needed to protect investors adequately. Financial analyst and The Deep Dive contributor, Braden Maccke covered the Bridging Finance scandal extensively and he argues that the Bridging case points to a need for tighter regulatory measures in Canada’s private debt sector.
In his analysis on The Deep Dive, Maccke noted that Bridging’s financial practices, such as accepting non-cash loan payments and allowing unpaid interest to accrue without collateral, point to deeper regulatory weaknesses that allowed high-risk lending to persist largely unchecked. He argues that without tighter scrutiny in Canada’s private lending sector, these high-risk practices could continue to jeopardize investors, particularly in alternative finance markets like those Bridging operated in.
In his series on Bridging, Maccke has pointed to specific lapses, such as Bridging’s substantial loans to cannabis company MJardin and the lack of enforced transparency around these high-risk loans. This scandal, according to him, highlights a need for reform, with calls for clear regulatory updates to prevent similar mismanagement and losses for investors in the future.
Concerns about regulatory oversight have also been raised in Parliament, with some lawmakers calling for a review of Canada’s regulations around non-bank financial institutions.
For Bridging Finance’s investors, many of whom were drawn in by assurances of secure returns, the Tribunal’s decision brings some closure but little financial relief. With over a billion dollars lost, PwC’s receivership efforts are ongoing, yet the recovery of funds appears limited.
PwC’s last report estimated that a significant portion of Bridging’s loans—approximately $1.7 billion of the $1.9 billion outstanding—are accruing interest only on paper and are unlikely to return any real value.
Information for this story was found via The Globe And Mail and the sources mentioned. The author has no securities or affiliations related to this organization. Views expressed within are solely that of the author. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.
Key OSC witness in Bridging Finance case alleges executives altered loan documents and kept conflicts of interest secret
On Wednesday, the OSC went into the most of the “unusual’s” that he had never done before. He also alleged that he would have to be more like a “one” or “two” than a ‘three’ or a � “four’ – or a “five” – or an “six” is often more like one or two, or one or three, or a few, or two – or one, or three – or four, or five, or six, or several – or many, or even a dozen, or many – can be seen in the state of a state or a nation. He would never know what he would be like to be like, or how he would feel, or what he will be like – or how much he would like to feel. He has never been the same way he has always been the way he feels – he has never had the same idea of what he is like. He is never the same thing that he is now, or the way that he used to be – he is always the same.
Dennis McCluskey, a former Bridging Finance official who sat on the lender’s eight-person credit committee, testified Wednesday as part of the OSC’s enforcement hearings. He alleged that loan approval documents were sometimes altered for reasons that were unclear to credit-committee members like himself.
He also alleged that some of these documents provided false uses of proceeds, meaning credit-committee members, the majority of whom were needed to approve a loan, were not told what the money would really be used for.
The OSC has formally charged David and Natasha Sharpe, the husband-and-wife duo that ran Bridging Finance until its 2021 receivership, with fraud. Bridging’s former chief compliance officer, Andrew Mushore, has also been charged with fraud. The regulator’s enforcement hearing started in June.
The OSC is seeking to ban the Sharpes and Mr. Mushore from various types of participation in Ontario’s capital markets, and is asking for penalties of up to $1-million for each alleged breach of securities laws.
In June, the OSC said six Bridging Finance insiders would testify. Mr. McCluskey is a key figure because he was one of Bridging’s longest-serving employees, having joined the firm in 2015 when it was barely known and managed a small fraction of the $2.09-billion it ultimately oversaw. Mr. McCluskey worked closely with Natasha Sharpe, who sourced the majority of Bridging Finance’s loans.
The OSC’s case is largely built around loans to three of Bridging’s borrowers – companies owned or controlled by Rishi Gautam, Gary Ng and Sean McCoshen – and as a credit-committee member, Mr. McCluskey was integral to the approvals of all three.
On Wednesday, OSC lawyers went into the most detail on the loan involving Mr. Gautam. The regulator has previously alleged that the Sharpes asked Mr. Gautam to accept a “back-to-back loan” – an arrangement whereby he would receive a $35-million loan from Bridging, only to turn around and lend that money back.
This $35-million, the OSC alleges, was used by the Sharpes to buy out a co-manager of Bridging Finance’s flagship fund. In other words, the buyout was paid for with investor funds and disguised to look like the money came from elsewhere.
The back-to-back loan has gained prominence throughout the hearing because the OSC disclosed in June that it sparked the regulator’s investigation. In 2020, the OSC received an anonymous tip about it, and the regulator ultimately assigned a forensic accountant to study the matter.
On Wednesday, Mr. McCluskey said the approval process for this loan was “unusual.” For one, David and Natasha Sharpe called him early on a Saturday morning in September, 2018, to brief him on the loan – something they had never done before. Their false explanation for the extra care, he alleges, was that the borrower was considering making an investment in Bridging Finance, so they had to be careful concerning any conflicts of interest.
Mr. McCluskey said Wednesday that he found their actions so strange that he made sure to send copies of his approval feedback to his private e-mail address so that he would have a record in the future. (To this end, the OSC has alleged that Bridging Finance destroyed 34,000 e-mails in a “targeted effort to cleanse the record of evidence.”)
Adding to his confusion, Mr. McCluskey said that a falsified credit-committee memo for this loan was also drafted and backdated to Aug. 31, 2018, for reasons he could not quite understand.
As well, Mr. McCluskey testified that the approval process for a $32-million loan to Mr. Ng was unusual. When the loan was sent to the credit committee for approval, Mr. McCluskey said he noticed that the borrower named was a Manitoba numbered company, but the owner was not listed.
Ultimately, he inquired about this and was told that Ms. Sharpe instructed the person who drafted the memo to not include Mr. Ng’s name. “I thought it was ridiculous,” Mr. McCluskey testified.
Loans to Mr. Ng are a key element of the OSC’s case because the Winnipeg businessman bought a 50-per-cent stake in Bridging Finance for $50-million in 2019, and the regulator alleges that the Sharpes used investor money to enrich themselves.
The OSC also alleges that the Sharpes did not disclose that the money Mr. Ng borrowed would be used to buy half of their company.
Bridging Finance Executives Receive Fines, Bans in Ontario Fraud Case
The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder. You consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.
Six Bridging Finance insiders to testify for the OSC in private lender’s alleged fraud case
Bridging Finance Inc. was put under a court-ordered receivership in April, 2021. The money manager improperly used investor funds to benefit some of its founders and executives. The OSC took formal action against the Sharpes and Mr. Mushore in March, 2022. The regulator alleges loans to entities owned or controlled by these three were used to misappropriate investor funds. The hearings, overseen by a panel of OSC adjudicators, are scheduled to run intermittently until February, 2024, and the OSC is seeking to ban them from various types of participation in Ontario’s capital markets. At the time of its receivership, Bridging managed $2.09-billion on behalf of 26,000 investors, many of them retail investors. Current estimates peg investor losses at $1.3-billion, close to two-thirds of all money put in. For confidential support call the Samaritans in the UK on 08457 90 90 90, visit a local Samaritans branch or click here for details.
Six senior Bridging Finance Inc. employees will be witnesses for the Ontario Securities Commission in its case against the private lender’s top executives, suggesting former company insiders will provide additional evidence of Bridging’s alleged fraud, dishonesty and deceit.
Disclosure of the six insider witnesses was made Monday on the first day of the OSC’s enforcement hearing against Bridging Finance and the husband and wife who ran the private lender, David and Natasha Sharpe. Former Bridging Finance chief compliance officer Andrew Mushore is also a defendant.
In their opening argument, OSC lawyers alleged the Sharpes directly benefited from a fraud that saw approximately $19-million of investor funds diverted to Mr. Sharpe’s bank account, among other alleged misappropriations. All three defendants also allegedly engaged in a “sophisticated and multi-faceted cover up” that included amending loan documents and destroying 34,000 e-mails in a “targeted effort to cleanse the record of evidence that might prove the wrongdoing,” said OSC lawyer Mark Bailey.
The OSC also alleged that all three defendants provided a “false narrative” to its investigators while they were under oath, and that Mr. Sharpe sent intimidating texts and voicemails laced with profanities to Bridging employees who had knowledge of the alleged misconduct.
Three of the former employees who will be OSC witnesses sat on the lender’s credit committee that approved loans, and the regulator suggested they will confirm that the Sharpes altered loan documents to conceal certain approvals.
Bridging Finance was put under a court-ordered receivership in April, 2021, after allegations that the money manager improperly used investor funds to benefit some of its founders and executives. The OSC took formal action against the Sharpes and Mr. Mushore in March, 2022, and the OSC’s hearings into these allegations started Monday, more than two years after the receivership rocked Bay Street.
Bridging specialized in making short-term loans to high-risk borrowers, and every major bank and independent brokerage in Canada sold its funds. At the time of its receivership, Bridging managed $2.09-billion on behalf of 26,000 investors, many of them retail investors. Current estimates peg investor losses at $1.3-billion, close to two-thirds of all money put in.
The hearings, overseen by a panel of OSC adjudicators, are scheduled to run intermittently until February, 2024, and the OSC is seeking to ban the Sharpes and Mr. Mushore from various types of participation in Ontario’s capital markets. The regulator is also asking for penalties of up to $1-million for each alleged breach of securities laws, and it is seeking to recover any proceeds that were generated from the alleged misconduct.
Mr. Sharpe announced Monday that he will not attend or otherwise participate in the hearings because he believes the OSC’s case against him cannot proceed. The former chief executive has been fighting the regulator over the public disclosure of his compelled testimony, however, the OSC’s tribunal has already ruled against him in this matter.
The OSC’s case is largely built around three of Bridging’s borrowers – Sean McCoshen, Rishi Gautam and Gary Ng – and the regulator alleges loans to entities owned or controlled by these three were used to misappropriate investor funds.
Mr. McCoshen is a Winnipeg businessman who was the principal of Alaska-Alberta Railway Development Corp. (A2A), which was Bridging’s largest borrower. The OSC alleges that between 2016 and 2019 a numbered company controlled by Mr. McCoshen, 704 Manitoba, transferred approximately $19-million of Bridging investors’ funds into Mr. Sharpe’s personal chequing account. On Monday, Daniel Tourangeau, a forensic accountant with the OSC, said $18.2-million “can definitely be identified as investor funds.”
The OSC also alleges that Mr. Sharpe instructed Bridging Finance staff to alter loan documents to show that the recipient of the loan advances was A2A instead of Mr. McCoshen’s numbered company.
The regulator also alleges the Sharpes and Mr. Mushore participated in a scheme that involved using $35-million of investor money to buy out a co-management contract between Bridging and its former investment management partner. The paper trail for that transaction was disguised to make it appear as though the purchase had been funded through a loan that Bridging obtained, when in fact the funds were taken from one of Bridging’s own investor funds, the OSC alleges.
At the hearing Monday, the OSC alleged that Bridging Finance’s credit committee was never told the lender’s own fund would be used to cover the purchase of the management contract. “We’ll have credit committee members testifying to this fact,” Mr. Bailey said. The OSC also alleged Mr. Sharpe created a false loan invoice and used Mr. Gautam’s signature from another loan document to make it appear as though the borrowed money came from elsewhere.
As for Mr. Ng, a businessman who purchased a 50-per-cent stake in Bridging Finance for $50-million in 2019, the OSC alleges impropriety related to multiple loans Bridging made to him. The OSC alleges the Sharpes approved a $32-million loan in June, 2019, to a company that Mr. Ng controlled even though he had at that point contractually committed to buy half of Bridging, and that Bridging Finance also advanced another $35-million to Mr. Ng after he bought 50 per cent of the company. The OSC alleges the Sharpes hid this transaction from the credit committee.
Gary Ng amassed a ‘fleet’ of companies with no more than $500,000 in the bank, court documents allege
Gary Ng was briefly a force in Canada’s wealth-management sector. He borrowed more than $240-million to fund a series of investment dealer acquisitions. Court documents allege he secured the loans with falsified account statements showing he was worth closer to $90-million. The allegations highlight the disconnect between the reality of his personal holdings, and the proclamations he made a few years ago about his ambitions to consolidate the Canadian wealth- Management sector. Mr. Ng has been charged with fraud and money laundering. None of the allegations against him have been proven in court. The documents were filed in support of several judicial orders for the production of records, had been barred from public view until they were unsealed in June, but only recently obtained by The Globe and Mail. They shed light on several aspects of the scandal, which led the RCMP to charge him earlier this year. They include a detailed account of how Richard Thomas, the chief compliance officer at Vancouver-based PI Financial Corp., detected the alleged fraud. The records also show that when the alleged falsified accounts came to light, David and Natasha Sharpe, then the husband-and-wife executive team at Bridging Finance Inc., confronted Mr Ng.
Gary Ng, the Winnipeg-based entrepreneur who was briefly a force in Canada’s wealth-management sector, had less than $500,000 in his personal accounts when he borrowed more than $240-million to fund a series of investment dealer acquisitions, new court documents allege.
Between 2018 and 2020, Mr. Ng borrowed nearly a quarter of a billion dollars from some of North America’s most sophisticated lenders – loans he secured with falsified account statements showing he was worth closer to $90-million, the RCMP have alleged in court filings.
The allegations about the true state of Mr. Ng’s modest net worth highlight the disconnect between the reality of his personal holdings, and the proclamations he made a few years ago about his ambitions to consolidate the Canadian wealth-management sector. The documents, which were filed in support of several judicial orders for the production of records, had been barred from public view until they were unsealed in June, but only recently obtained by The Globe and Mail.
They shed light on several aspects of the scandal, which led the RCMP to charge Mr. Ng with fraud and money laundering earlier this year. The documents included a detailed account of how Richard Thomas, the chief compliance officer at Vancouver-based PI Financial Corp., detected the alleged fraud. At the time of that discovery in January, 2020, Mr. Thomas was an employee of Mr. Ng, who had purchased PI for $100-million in late 2018.
The records also show that when the alleged falsified accounts came to light, David and Natasha Sharpe, then the husband-and-wife executive team at Bridging Finance Inc., confronted Mr. Ng. At the time, Bridging was co-owned by Mr. Ng and the company was also one of Mr. Ng’s largest financial backers, having lent him $90-million.
How one of Gary Ng’s lenders tried to keep quiet that it had been allegedly defrauded
The Sharpes, who have since been accused of fraud by the Ontario Securities Commission, in part because of their dealings with Mr. Ng, recorded the confrontation. The RCMP have obtained a copy of the audio recording, in which, they allege, Mr. Ng admits to falsifying records.
Mr. Ng declined to comment for this story. His lawyer, Christi Hunter, said in an e-mail that he is “pro-actively defending himself through the proper channels of the criminal process.”
None of the allegations against him have been proven in court.
Until 2020, Mr. Ng presented himself as an upstart in Canada’s independent investment-adviser sector and a major acquirer of wealth-management companies. In media interviews, he referred to himself as an “admiral” who was amassing a “fleet” of companies.
His first foray into the business was with Chippingham Financial Group Ltd., which he founded in 2012 along with another Winnipeg-based investor. But between 2018 and 2020, his imprint expanded significantly and rapidly. Over that two-year period, he paid $20-million for Montreal-based Rothenberg Capital Management, $100-million for PI, which at the time managed $4.5-billion in assets, and $50-million for a noncontrolling 50-per-cent stake in Bridging.
In addition to his $90-million loan from Bridging, his acquisition spree was funded by three other lenders, according to the records:
H.I.G. Capital Management, which is based in Miami and has US$52-billion under management, lent Mr. Ng US$80-million;
R.C. Morris Capital Management Ltd., a Vancouver-based asset manager, lent him $60-million, $20-million of which he paid back;
BlackRock Financial Management Inc., the New York-based private equity giant, lent him US$12-million.
The unsealed records contain a 10-page report written by Mr. Thomas, PI’s general counsel, about how he uncovered the alleged fraud.
On Jan. 29, 2020, a little more than a year after Mr. Ng bought PI, Mr. Thomas was reviewing a number of internal corporate e-mails. A former Chippingham employee who had a long-standing lawsuit against Mr. Ng had added PI as a defendant, and it was Mr. Thomas’s job to vet documents before producing them for the plaintiff.
During that process, Mr. Thomas happened upon e-mail exchanges between PI director Donald Metcalfe – one of the loyalists Mr. Ng brought over to PI from Chippingham – and staff at R.C. Morris, one of Mr. Ng’s lenders. The exchanges stuck out, Mr. Thomas recalled, because they contained information that he believed was not true: Mr. Metcalfe wrote that one of Mr. Ng’s PI investment accounts was worth at least $21-million, and said that R.C. Morris had a control agreement in place restricting what Mr. Ng could do with the assets.
A long-time veteran executive at PI, Mr. Thomas wrote that he was “personally aware that Mr. Ng had never held assets in such amounts in accounts of PI.” Mr. Thomas was also “unaware of any account control agreement on any account Mr. Ng held with PI.”
He dug deeper, and determined that the account Mr. Metcalfe referred to was owned, not by Mr. Ng, but by an entirely different client of PI, the document states. Mr. Thomas and PI’s chief executive officer Jean-Paul Bachellerie reported their findings to the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, or IIROC.
The regulator, which ultimately determined that Mr. Ng falsified and fabricated other account statements, has since fined Mr. Ng $5-million and banned him for life from the industry.
IIROC has also launched an enforcement proceeding against Mr. Metcalfe, which is unresolved. Mr. Metcalfe has denied all of the IIROC’s allegations and has not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing. He could not be reached for comment.
Mr. Thomas’s internal investigation also uncovered evidence that R.C. Morris had concerns about the proof Mr. Ng had been providing to the lender about his collateral, and that Mr. Ng took steps to keep outsiders from snooping around the true state of his wealth.
E-mails from 2019 showed that R.C. Morris was frustrated Mr. Ng hadn’t provided sufficient evidence that his investment accounts were blocked, a mechanism to ensure that he couldn’t deplete the lender’s security. When R.C. Morris demanded more proof that the accounts were blocked, Mr. Ng “reacted aggressively,” and suggested their relationship should be wound up, Mr. Thomas’s report states. Mr. Ng’s threat appeared to cause R.C. Morris “to back off from its request,” Mr. Thomas wrote.
The documents also make it clear that there was one person Mr. Ng did not want involved in his regularly scheduled collateral updates to R.C. Morris: Mr. Thomas, the compliance officer.
In 2019, when R.C. Morris requested that Mr. Thomas act as a signatory on the control agreement over the accounts, Mr. Ng pushed back, writing in one e-mail, “due to the sensitive nature of my loan, I do not want PI Staff involved.”
R.C. Morris declined to answer questions that The Globe e-mailed to its managing partner, Christopher Morris, for this story. Instead, the company convened an emergency court hearing where it sought to reseal the documents, a request that was turned down on Wednesday by Justice Vincenzo Rondinelli.
When allegations filtered out in early 2020 among Mr. Ng’s lenders about the non-existent investments backing their loans, they scrambled to get a handle on the extent of their exposure, the court documents show.
On Feb. 27, the Sharpes confronted Mr. Ng in a phone call, which the couple recorded. When David Sharpe asked Mr. Ng about a family trust that he had pledged to Bridging, and which was purportedly valued at $150-million, Mr. Ng allegedly replied: “That … was not correct. That was falsified as well.”
When Ms. Sharpe asked him why he would do such a thing, Mr. Ng gave a rambling reply. “The reason why I did that Natasha was in order to get the leverage I required to … put my plan into action,” he allegedly said.
“Like I said, I’m going to spend the rest of my life apologizing to you and David … and all my other stakeholders. But I did it because that was the only way I could get to achieving the plan that I put out. And the plan was sound. Like I said, it was working.”
He allegedly added: “I guess … there was a whistle-blower somewhere.”
All of the lenders interviewed by the RCMP said they were reluctant to put an exact dollar value on any losses they may have incurred, citing both the complexity of unravelling the loans as well as their continuing recovery efforts.
Some spoke about the due diligence they performed on Mr. Ng prior to lending. Representatives from H.I.G. said that, in addition to reviewing records about Mr. Ng’s purported net worth, they retained a corporate intelligence firm to perform a background check on him. It found nothing to dissuade them from believing him “to be a sound financial partner,” they said.
H.I.G., which did not respond to requests for comment from The Globe, also had safeguards in place to ensure PI met performance targets. When those targets were missed in 2019, Mr. Ng was required to pay down more of his loan, which he did. However, the company has since come to suspect Mr. Ng was using loans from R.C. Morris or BlackRock to make the payments, H.I.G. representatives told the RCMP.
BlackRock is suing Mr. Ng in Ontario. Bridging is now under the control of a court-appointed receiver, but it’s not clear what assets the receiver, PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., could possibly recover from Mr. Ng through litigation. Two luxury condos that Mr. Ng purchased in Toronto in 2019, as well as his $9-million Ontario cottage with a helipad, have all been sold, but it’s not clear which of his lenders was entitled to the proceeds.
The RCMP documents state that Mr. Ng reached a partial settlement with R.C. Morris that involved him paying $5-million and handing over a Lamborghini, which has been sold.
As for Rothenberg Capital Management, the Montreal-based asset manager that Mr. Ng acquired in 2018, he now has zero interest in the company. Rothenberg is 100-per-cent employee owned, its chief executive officer, Robert Rothenberg, said in a statement.
The largest asset available to offset losses was PI, which is now majority owned by H.I.G. and R.C. Morris. In an e-mailed statement, PI’s Mr. Bachellerie described the ownership transfer as “seamless,” and said that since that transition, some PI employees have taken small stakes in the company.
“The firm continues to grow and recorded two of its strongest financial years in its history during and after the ownership change,” he said.
As for Mr. Ng, a date has yet to be set for his trial.