HousingNowTO said:
The filing states that Coco and Mizrahi are guarantors on the loans in a personal capacity, meaning their personal assets — including homes, incomes and bank accounts — could be on the hook if KEB Hana Bank's application succeeds, according to real estate lawyers who read the document at the Star's request.“

www.thestar.com

Senior lenders behind luxury condo The One sue Sam Mizrahi and Jenny Coco for $1.5 billion

Mizrahi Developments was ousted as developer of the iconic Toronto skyscraper, now called One Bloor West, in February 2024, after the project was placed into receivership.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...

Maybe this is too in the weeds but I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable with the real estate / development sector can speak to this: I've never quite understood why people who have certainly "made it" in life (Mizrahi presumably had millions of dollars in personal assets before embarking on The One) would personally guarantee something related to their corporation (in this case a $1.5 billion real estate development loan). Why take on that risk? Why remove a main benefit of the corporation structure that real estate development usually uses (a separate legal entity for each project)?

Are all the lenders requiring this as a condition and there's no other way to get the funding? Or is it just to reduce the interest rate?

For context, my understanding is that a personal guarantee is often (always?) required when signing a retail lease for say a coffee shop or restaurant, but that makes a bit more sense to me because at least in the case of someone trying to open a small restaurant they probably haven't "made it" yet with significant personal assets at risk, so they're perhaps more willing to roll the dice. But still, I see small retail shops in the new buildings around me close down and I think about how if the owner personally guaranteed a 5 year lease, they might be out hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that really the case?
 
Start Fox said:
Maybe this is too in the weeds but I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable with the real estate / development sector can speak to this: I've never quite understood why people who have certainly "made it" in life (Mizrahi presumably had millions of dollars in personal assets before embarking on The One) would personally guarantee something related to their corporation (in this case a $1.5 billion real estate development loan). Why take on that risk? Why remove a main benefit of the corporation structure that real estate development usually uses (a separate legal entity for each project)?

Are all the lenders requiring this as a condition and there's no other way to get the funding? Or is it just to reduce the interest rate?

For context, my understanding is that a personal guarantee is often (always?) required when signing a retail lease for say a coffee shop or restaurant, but that makes a bit more sense to me because at least in the case of someone trying to open a small restaurant they probably haven't "made it" yet with significant personal assets at risk, so they're perhaps more willing to roll the dice. But still, I see small retail shops in the new buildings around me close down and I think about how if the owner personally guaranteed a 5 year lease, they might be out hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that really the case?
Click to expand...
In the good times when money is flowing into private debt financiers that cascades down to projects like this, there's far fewer questions asked by the lenders or any kind due diligence look-through from those funding the loans.

You can also find these individuals know about the personal guarantee and have set it up so that if things blow up they nominally "own" nothing. Everything they have is leased or borrowed from someone else so it can't be added into a claim on their assets. Extend that into conveniently not having any cash because all the cash they've made is mysteriously gone.

You can also simply declare bankruptcy, which is kind of becoming more in the public consciousness as not a big deal. People think if you file for bankruptcy your life is over, in reality you give it 18 months and you're right back in it, probably with most of what you had before.
 
Last edited:
Start Fox said:
Maybe this is too in the weeds but I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable with the real estate / development sector can speak to this: I've never quite understood why people who have certainly "made it" in life (Mizrahi presumably had millions of dollars in personal assets before embarking on The One) would personally guarantee something related to their corporation (in this case a $1.5 billion real estate development loan). Why take on that risk? Why remove a main benefit of the corporation structure that real estate development usually uses (a separate legal entity for each project)?

Are all the lenders requiring this as a condition and there's no other way to get the funding? Or is it just to reduce the interest rate?

For context, my understanding is that a personal guarantee is often (always?) required when signing a retail lease for say a coffee shop or restaurant, but that makes a bit more sense to me because at least in the case of someone trying to open a small restaurant they probably haven't "made it" yet with significant personal assets at risk, so they're perhaps more willing to roll the dice. But still, I see small retail shops in the new buildings around me close down and I think about how if the owner personally guaranteed a 5 year lease, they might be out hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that really the case?
Click to expand...
Mizrahi was not big enough to find financing for a project of this size without putting all of his assets up for recourse purposes. Very large developers like Tridel can finance their projects on the basis of their corporate covenant alone.
 
Johnny Au said:
In 1894, the Toronto skyline was visible from Buffalo:

en.wikipedia.org

Fata Morgana (mirage) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

If the Fata Morgana were to happen again, then One Bloor West would be very easily visible from Buffalo.
Click to expand...

Theoretically the top of the CN tower should be visible from the top of the Seneca One tower. In reality it’s exceedingly difficult as atmospheric distortion at those distances makes it very challenging to see.
 
DSCF5054.jpg
 
innsertnamehere said:
Theoretically the top of the CN tower should be visible from the top of the Seneca One tower. In reality it’s exceedingly difficult as atmospheric distortion at those distances makes it very challenging to see.
Click to expand...
It can’t be that bad. We live 190 feet up and our south windows directly face Niagara Falls. On clear days we can make out the taller buildings of NF (Skylon, Can and US Casinos) with the naked eye.
 
zang said:
It can’t be that bad. We live 190 feet up and our south windows directly face Niagara Falls. On clear days we can make out the taller buildings of NF (Skylon, Can and US Casinos) with the naked eye.
Click to expand...
Yes for sure. From Niagara Falls you can easily see the downtown Toronto skyline on clear days as well.
 
zang said:
It can’t be that bad. We live 190 feet up and our south windows directly face Niagara Falls. On clear days we can make out the taller buildings of NF (Skylon, Can and US Casinos) with the naked eye.
Click to expand...
Buffalo is about 50% further than Niagara Falls - which is why it is even tougher to make it out. The curvature of the earth starts to block a lot more of the skyline at that distance meaning only the tallest buildings would be visible. For Toronto looking towards Buffalo, basically only Seneca One would be tall enough to be visible.

it is probably a bit easier to spot Toronto from Seneca One though as there would be more buildings poking above the horizon.

Edit: standing on the top of Seneca One, the bottom ~200 metres of Toronto's skyline would be blocked. From the observation deck of the CN tower, the bottom ~61m of the Buffalo Skyline would be blocked.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top