PXL_20250905_231744343.jpg





1bwa.jpg





PXL_20250905_231408449.jpg
 
“Lenders behind troubled luxury condo One Bloor West (formerly The One) are suing paving tycoon Jenny Coco and real estate mogul Sam Mizrahi over allegations that they have defaulted as guarantors of the project's loans.

KEB Hana Bank, acting as trustee of two South Korean private real estate funds, is demanding that Coco and Mizrahi repay $1.5 billion in outstanding principal, interest and fees, according to a notice of application filed in court on Aug. 19.

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.“

 
“Lenders behind troubled luxury condo One Bloor West (formerly The One) are suing paving tycoon Jenny Coco and real estate mogul Sam Mizrahi over allegations that they have defaulted as guarantors of the project's loans.

KEB Hana Bank, acting as trustee of two South Korean private real estate funds, is demanding that Coco and Mizrahi repay $1.5 billion in outstanding principal, interest and fees, according to a notice of application filed in court on Aug. 19.

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.“

Jenny Coco was also involved in the collapse of the private debt investment firm Bridging Finance, where many of the loans were floated to businesses that immediately paid back "consulting fees" directly to the owners, not the investors, and many of the loans were allegedly kept at book value in the fund's accounting records even though they knew they would never be recovered.

 
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.“


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?
 
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?
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:
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?
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.
 
In 1894, the Toronto skyline was visible from Buffalo:


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

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.
 

Back
Top