- Joined
- May 11, 2026
- Messages
- 1
For years, billionaire Greedy George presented himself as the saviour of a struggling Slate Office Reit, now Ravelin . He called himself a visionary investor willing to step in when others feared commercial real estate.
But now, Unit Holders and Debt Holders are seeing George’s true colours as he is orchestrating a calculated financial squeeze designed to seize full control of a REIT at the lowest possible price — while crushing the very investors who supported it for decades.
Unit Holders and Debt Holders Need to.
VOTE NO.
The Non-Arm’s-Length Unit Sale Questions
Greedy George sold all his units at non-arm’s-length transactions.
Investors deserve transparency.
Who bought the shares?
Were Friends, Family and Insiders involved?
Were these transactions structured to quietly consolidate power before the takeover proposal?
“These are the questions every regulator and every unitholder should be asking.”
“Ordinary Unitholders were left in the dark while control shifted behind closed doors.”
Non-arm’s-length transactions can create serious conflicts of interest, particularly when a dominant insider already exerts enormous influence over a public entity.
Buying the Debt — Then Raising the Pressure
George’s most controversial move came when he purchased All of the REIT’s bank debt across Canada and the United States at discounted prices.
No Need to buy back All the Debt, The banks were already lenders. The debt already existed.
But once George took control of the debt, everything changed.
Instead of Bank lending terms, the REIT became trapped under far more punishing interest obligations controlled directly by its largest insider.
“He became both the landlord and the loan shark.”
George effectively positioned himself to profit whether the REIT survived or collapsed.
If the REIT struggled, he collected interest.
If it failed, he could seize assets.
Pennies for Investors — Billions for George
The proposal now facing investors, longtime unitholders are being offered 1.2 cents per unit, while debt holders receive only .30 cents on the dollar.
For many investors, the offer feels less like a restructuring and more like a surrender.
Especially because the timing has raised suspicions.
After years of pain in the office sector, market sentiment has recently begun improving. Leasing activity is stabilizing in several major markets, return-to-office momentum is increasing, and institutional investors have cautiously started re-entering the office space.
Yet just as conditions begin to recover, George appears eager to wipe out existing stakeholders and consolidate ownership for himself.
Why Shareholders Want CCAA Instead
Reject George’s proposal and force the matter into CCAA proceedings.
Under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, shareholders and creditors would get greater court supervision, transparency, and fairness in how assets and liabilities are handled.
More importantly, they believe George would lose the extraordinary leverage he currently enjoys.
“He doesn’t want CCAA because then independent parties start looking at everything.”
Court-supervised process could expose how the Equity transactions where structured.
And unlike the current proposal, a CCAA process could force George himself to absorb major consequences — including enormous legal costs and the potential loss of some of the REIT’s crown-jewel properties.
When Is Enough Enough?
Greedy George has become, for many, a symbol of modern corporate excess — where billionaires can allegedly manipulate debt, pressure distressed companies, and strip value from public investors with little accountability.
Unitholders are no longer merely asking whether George’s proposal is fair.
They are asking a bigger question:
How much more wealth does one billionaire need before fairness matters more than control?
And increasingly, investors are answering with two words:
VOTE NO.
But now, Unit Holders and Debt Holders are seeing George’s true colours as he is orchestrating a calculated financial squeeze designed to seize full control of a REIT at the lowest possible price — while crushing the very investors who supported it for decades.
Unit Holders and Debt Holders Need to.
VOTE NO.
The Non-Arm’s-Length Unit Sale Questions
Greedy George sold all his units at non-arm’s-length transactions.
Investors deserve transparency.
Who bought the shares?
Were Friends, Family and Insiders involved?
Were these transactions structured to quietly consolidate power before the takeover proposal?
“These are the questions every regulator and every unitholder should be asking.”
“Ordinary Unitholders were left in the dark while control shifted behind closed doors.”
Non-arm’s-length transactions can create serious conflicts of interest, particularly when a dominant insider already exerts enormous influence over a public entity.
Buying the Debt — Then Raising the Pressure
George’s most controversial move came when he purchased All of the REIT’s bank debt across Canada and the United States at discounted prices.
No Need to buy back All the Debt, The banks were already lenders. The debt already existed.
But once George took control of the debt, everything changed.
Instead of Bank lending terms, the REIT became trapped under far more punishing interest obligations controlled directly by its largest insider.
“He became both the landlord and the loan shark.”
George effectively positioned himself to profit whether the REIT survived or collapsed.
If the REIT struggled, he collected interest.
If it failed, he could seize assets.
Pennies for Investors — Billions for George
The proposal now facing investors, longtime unitholders are being offered 1.2 cents per unit, while debt holders receive only .30 cents on the dollar.
For many investors, the offer feels less like a restructuring and more like a surrender.
Especially because the timing has raised suspicions.
After years of pain in the office sector, market sentiment has recently begun improving. Leasing activity is stabilizing in several major markets, return-to-office momentum is increasing, and institutional investors have cautiously started re-entering the office space.
Yet just as conditions begin to recover, George appears eager to wipe out existing stakeholders and consolidate ownership for himself.
Why Shareholders Want CCAA Instead
Reject George’s proposal and force the matter into CCAA proceedings.
Under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, shareholders and creditors would get greater court supervision, transparency, and fairness in how assets and liabilities are handled.
More importantly, they believe George would lose the extraordinary leverage he currently enjoys.
“He doesn’t want CCAA because then independent parties start looking at everything.”
Court-supervised process could expose how the Equity transactions where structured.
And unlike the current proposal, a CCAA process could force George himself to absorb major consequences — including enormous legal costs and the potential loss of some of the REIT’s crown-jewel properties.
When Is Enough Enough?
Greedy George has become, for many, a symbol of modern corporate excess — where billionaires can allegedly manipulate debt, pressure distressed companies, and strip value from public investors with little accountability.
Unitholders are no longer merely asking whether George’s proposal is fair.
They are asking a bigger question:
How much more wealth does one billionaire need before fairness matters more than control?
And increasingly, investors are answering with two words:
VOTE NO.