These last words are also appropriate for the possibility that Payne's contact with Debret would have yielded information about Or's conduct and taking loan money into his pocket. The trustee's report also did not mention whether the suspicions in this matter were supported by the documents. Therefore, it does not appear that Fine could have disclosed this matter without the active cooperation of Debreth, who had no incentive to provide such information.
- According to the plaintiffs, Payne should have suspected that the venture was in difficulties in light of the fact that Debret had asked him to continue and recruit investors even after they had been found to be sufficiently lenient for the ongoing project. They noted that in a WhatsApp correspondence dated October 3, 2019 between Fine and Corey, Fine wrote that the Metmid project was built at a rate of about 60% (a statement that apparently reflected the reality at the time, as also appears from the trustee's report in the liquidation file) and that a sum of $300,000 was needed to complete it. He further said that at that time he had recruited investors who had injected $200,000, and suggested that she continue to invest her money in this project (p. 30 of the appendices to Corrie's affidavit). Despite this, Payne added and raised for Devret sums that together amounted to $650,000 ($200,000 already raised; $50,000 from Payne's parents; $100,000 original; and $300,000 from Ancona). When asked why he continued to raise funds for the projects, Fine replied that this was what Debreth had asked him to do (p. 38 of the minutes, lines 24-26), and that he did not know whether the funds he was asked to raise were intended specifically for the permanent project and not for one of the other projects included in the economic project (p. 39 of the minutes, lines 1-5).
This response is consistent with the fact that at the time Fine sent Corrie a prospectus that included three of the five projects that are the subject of the lawsuit (Appendix C to Corrie's affidavit), and made it clear to her that this was an engagement with only one developer, but that there were other projects with five other entrepreneurs (email message dated May 17, 2018, at p. 55 of Corrie's appendices). There is no dispute that other companies of Debret have contracted with other entrepreneurs in urban renewal projects. It does not appear that from the perspective of the investors, the identity of the developer and the project has become of any importance. Thus, the persistent project in which some of the plaintiffs invested was not included in the prospectus that Fine sent to Corrie when she was interested in the investment, and his name was not mentioned by him. It was only on February 6, 2019, that Debret clarified to Pine that the Matmid project was also included in the business venture, even though it does not appear in the prospectus (email message dated February 6, 2019, Appendix F to Debreth's affidavit). Following this announcement, Fine informed Corrie that he was changing its loan target from the project in general to the most advanced project, the Persistent Project (WhatsApp message of February 6, 2019, p. 25 of Corrie's appendices).