Songy 2011: Restructuring to Survive (Or, Surviving to Restructure?)

Charles F. Wu; Alexander W. Schultz

Teaching Note | HBS Case Collection | August 2016

Songy 2011: Restructuring to Survive (Or, Surviving to Restructure?)

by Charles F. Wu and Alexander W. Schultz

Abstract

In 2011, Songy Partners, an Atlanta based real estate developer, was facing three distressed investments within their portfolio each with distinct sets of challenges. Having weathered a myriad of issues during the Global Financial Crisis which included operational shortfalls, failed partnerships, bankruptcies, lender consolidations, lagging tenant demand, low investment liquidity, and pending loan maturities, Songy needed a path forward for these three assets. Songy’s lenders were threatening to foreclose on all three properties and also call on corporate guarantees. The case addresses Songy’s decisions leading up to and during the crisis. Which of the firm’s challenges might have been avoidable, did the company have any leverage with its creditors, what tactics might the company employ to save its properties? Within this context, what are Songy’s responsibilities to his investors?

Keywords: distressed debt; real estate; limited partners; valuation; cap rates; Partners and Partnerships; Valuation; Investment; Property; Borrowing and Debt; Real Estate Industry; Atlanta;

Language: English

Format: Print

9 pages

Purchase

Citation:

Wu, Charles F., and Alexander W. Schultz. "Songy 2011: Restructuring to Survive (Or, Surviving to Restructure?)." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 217-014, August 2016.

Nathalie Parizat and her husband Hugo were contemplating a new real estate investment. For two years they had been frustrated by and lamenting their situation of paying high rents to third parties while the couple had idle cash in the bank. They also were convinced that Brooklyn's rising rents and property prices were showing no signs of abating. The couple had $100,000 in savings, which they intended to combine with mortgage financing to purchase a residential income-producing building. Nathalie focused her search on Brooklyn, narrowing it down to Williamsburg, where she thought there was better potential to make a good return on their investment. She had quit her full-time job and was planning on managing the building and the renovation – should it be needed – herself. Was she ready to take on this challenge or was she in over her head?

In 2015, two years after founding National Storage Affiliates (NSA), Arlen Nordhagen and Tamara Fischer had an important decision to make. Should they proceed with NSA’s IPO? Although they had targeted to receive $15-17 a share, it was now apparent that the figure was unlikely to be more than $13. Applying a novel solution to bringing private operators together, NSA had so far acquired or contracted 246 properties across the USA. NSA would bring in private operators (PROs) by offering equity in the total company and allowing them to keep most operational control. To increase the pace of growth and be able to compete with the public self-storage companies, NSA needed to raise more capital, hence the IPO. However, potential investors saw some problems with the business model and were unwilling to pay the envisioned target price per share. They identified three options going forward: proceed with the IPO at $13, remain private, or unwind the companies, letting the PROs regain individual ownership of the properties. What should they do?

Faculty & Research

Songy 2011: Restructuring to Survive (Or, Surviving to Restructure?)

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author