Stuyvesant Town–Peter Cooper Village: America’s Largest Foreclosure Case Solution & Answer

Question No. 02

Numerous mistakes made by Tishman Speyer and Black Rock have posed a significant problem to them. Firstly, they did not address the concern of the different tenants on refurbishment and gentrification of the rentalproperty. They could have recorded the preferences of different tenants and act accordingly.Anlso, the decision should be made based on the concern and preference of the mainstream.

The sponsor of the project was accountable for attracting the number of residents, but he failed to catch greater number of residents after the significantrisein the rental rates. The investors could have been engaged in making the features of the Stuyvesant Townsimple or less-complex, but due to its complex features, they could not set the price of the asset in accordance with premium market price. Thus, it has left them with loss.

Not only this, the sponsors have intended to recover the rent stabilized apartments.Due to this, the tenantsbecame rigorous about their placement and prefer to keep a small room for use. The fabricated practices of the sponsor must be overlooked by investorsand they could strive to seek the recovery of rent stabilized apartment based on the good faith intent.

The tactics being used by the sponsors were aggressive and against the personal concern of the tenants as the non-renewal notice was issued, though it is legal to issue non-renewal notice to the tenantsafter the expiry of lease, but it has made the tenants in contrary to living in those apartments.

All of these practices have posed a number of problems for them, which could have been prevented through making effective decisionsand strategies. The inappropriate tactics could have been avoided for the sake of the talentand they must be given a reasonable justification on increasing the lease on the rental property.

They could have waitedtill the rental property became sky rocketing in the market. They would have increased the rent which was opposed by the law because the court rule was to give tax incentives. The purpose of the tax incentive was to encourage and embolden the land owners to renovate the property and make it even more feasible for the tenants, but they do not follow the rules andincrease the rent on the rental property. Theyshould not have violated the law and taken actions in accordance with the law. As they have spent considerable amount on the rental property, they should have brought the property of a better standard. The situation could be negotiated by them through installing all of the suggested improvements.


The ineffective decision had left the investors with far bigger losses. If they come up with more suitable and appropriate strategies and tactics by keeping in mind to respect the law and provide specific guidelines to sponsors, they would not have had to turn the property to the creditors…………………..

This is just a sample partical work. Please place the order on the website to get your own originally done case solution.

Share This