Owners of 133 Water Street Go Belly Up
Yesterday, Bloomberg reported (and multiple outlets re-reported) that Water Street Realty Group LLC, the owner of the 52-unit rental building at 133 Water Street in Dumbo, filed for bankruptcy on Tuesday; Water Street Realty was not the original developer of the property—the LLC purchased the Scarano-designed property mid-construction in 2006 for $17.3 million. Over on…
Yesterday, Bloomberg reported (and multiple outlets re-reported) that Water Street Realty Group LLC, the owner of the 52-unit rental building at 133 Water Street in Dumbo, filed for bankruptcy on Tuesday; Water Street Realty was not the original developer of the property—the LLC purchased the Scarano-designed property mid-construction in 2006 for $17.3 million. Over on local blog DumboNYC, there’s a discussion going on about what this means for the existing tenants. One commenter warned that utility and service providers may stop showing up if they think they might not get paid.
Water Street Realty, New York Property, Files for Bankruptcy [Bloomberg]
133 Water St. Owners File for Bankruptcy [Brooklyn Eagle]
133 Water Street Files for Bankruptcy [DumboNYC]
Blood in the Water at 133 Water Street [Curbed]
133 Water Half-Rented, Partially Inhabited [Brownstoner]
Dumbo’s 133 Water Goes Rental [Brownstoner] GMAP
ok we get it serpentor
have patience when u click that post button
Serpentor,
Without knowing details and all of the factors at play, it’s hard to accurately speculate how they got in trouble, but it’s likely that, like many recent companies, they were speculating – and overpaid for the building and were hoping for continued real estate price appreciation. Perhaps they financed with a short-term mortgage at a lower rate, and perhaps that loan is now coming due – and maybe they couldn’t get a refi loan in this climate.
Just a guess, but according to Bloomberg their debt is 10 million higher than their assets. Not good. I think we’ll be seeing more of this, unfortunately.
Serpentor,
Without knowing details and all of the factors at play, it’s hard to accurately speculate how they got in trouble, but it’s likely that, like many recent companies, they were speculating – and overpaid for the building and were hoping for continued real estate price appreciation. Perhaps they financed with a short-term mortgage at a lower rate, and perhaps that loan is now coming due – and maybe they couldn’t get a refi loan in this climate.
Just a guess, but according to Bloomberg their debt is 10 million higher than their assets. Not good. I think we’ll be seeing more of this, unfortunately.
Serpentor,
Without knowing details and all of the factors at play, it’s hard to accurately speculate how they got in trouble, but it’s likely that, like many recent companies, they were speculating – and overpaid for the building and were hoping for continued real estate price appreciation. Perhaps they financed with a short-term mortgage at a lower rate, and perhaps that loan is now coming due – and maybe they couldn’t get a refi loan in this climate.
Just a guess, but according to Bloomberg their debt is 10 million higher than their assets. Not good. I think we’ll be seeing more of this, unfortunately.
Serpentor: If rents are sufficiently depressed, then the company can’t service its debt, even if the building is fully occupied.
Utilities will not be cut off. The bankruptcy filing (which Bloomberg reports is a Chapter 11 reorganiztion, not a Chapter 7 liquidation) freezes the obligation to perform on prepetition obligations (most relevantly the bank debt). There may be a month or two of previous utility bills that haven’t been paid, but the utilities would violate the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code if they cut off service because of those unpaid bills. On a go-forward basis, the debtor should be able to pay utility bills out of the rent roll now that the obligation to service the bank debt is frozen.
Can someone explain to me how a fully occupied building is bankrupt?
“I agree with Santa.”
VS
“As for it’s impact on ‘brownstone Brooklyn’, I don’t think it’ll have much. As DIBS said, it is fully occupied…”
EQUALS
CONTRADICTION
***Bid half off peak comps***
“Again, the What doesn’t get it. This building is fully occupied. If tenants were to start leaving they’d have to look elsewhere and drive prices up.
That saud, the water and power will not get cut to this building. That’s just crazy talk.” dibs
Another day, another retarted post by the one and only “Im going to lose $500K on my $900K investment” Dibs. So today dibs claims that a building going under will drive up prices every where else. LOL YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS SH8T UP!!!!!!
I agree with Santa.
I’ve seen a few tenants move back to Manhattan. With prices starting to equal out a lot of people prefer to be in Manhattan.
As for it’s impact on “brownstone Brooklyn”, I don’t think it’ll have much. As DIBS said, it is fully occupied and the financials/buyers/renters/etc of a loft high-rise esque building are completely different than those of the brownstone set.