Oct 31, 2000
Apr 19, 2000
Feb 10, 2000
MEDIA ARCHIVE
2010
- Toh Tuck Apartments Sold (Today: 31 Aug 2010)
- Two mansions up for sale
(Source : Straits Times – 1 Jun 2010) - New en bloc rules passed
(Source : Straits Times – 21 May 2010) - Hillview Terrace residential site put up for sale by tender
(Source : CNA– 18 May 2010) - A matter of time
(Source : Straits Times – 17 May 2010) - Strata Titles Board approves collective sale of Dragon Mansion
(Source : Straits Times – 10 May 2010) - Lagoon View en bloc, too?
(Source : Straits Times – 10 May 2010) - Laguna Park residents to push for en bloc sale again
(Source : Straits Times – 2 May 2010) - Sitting on a pot of ‘collective’ gold
(Source : Straits Times – 1 May 2010) - More en bloc sale activity expected as developers cater to mid-market segment
(Source : Straits Times – 28 Apr 2010) - More en bloc sale activity expected as developers cater to mid-market segment
(Source : Straits Times – 27 Apr 2010) - Market watchers welcome proposed changes to en bloc sale regulations
(Source : Straits Times – 26 Mar 2010) - Proposed changes to en bloc rules tabled at Parliament
(Source : Straits Times – 26 Mar 2010) - Fears not groundless
(Source : Straits Times – 24 Apr 2010) - Aspial buys Changi Complex
(Source : Straits Times – 22 Apr 2010) - Residents have power to deal with MC members
(Source : Straits Times – 20 Apr 2010) - Diamond Tower in Balestier sold in collective sale
(Source : Straits Times – 12 Apr 2010) - Fragrance Props pays $39m for Siglap property
(Source : Straits Times – 10 Apr 2010) - New project selling well; 3rd en bloc site sold
(Source : Straits Times – 10 Apr 2010) - Fragrance buys Culford Garden in enbloc bid for S$39m at tender
(Source : Straits Times – 9 Apr 2010) - Toh Tuck Apartment site up for sale
(Source : Straits Times – 8 Apr 2010) - Toh Tuck Apartment up for collective sale with asking price of S$35.5m
(Source : Straits Times – 7 Apr 2010) - Developers ‘not rushing’ into en bloc market yet
(Source : Straits Times – 6 Apr 2010) - Horizon Towers lawsuit set to go on
(Source : Straits Times – 30 Mar 2010) - Collective sales market stays cool
(Source : Straits Times – 27 Mar 2010) - 16 houses at Fort Road close to being sold
(Source : Straits Times – 27 Mar 2010) - Pender Court up for sale again with $100m price tag
(Source : Straits Times – 27 Mar 2010) - Mixed development en bloc sales need incentives
(Source : Straits Times – 25 Mar 2010) - Two East Coast en bloc sites on market
(Source : Straits Times – 18 Mar 2010) - Siglap condo makes en bloc pitch
(Source : Straits Times – 18 Mar 2010) - Credo Real Estate launches collective sale of Culford Garden at Siglap
(Source : Straits Times – 17 Mar 2010) - Co-owner loses fight to stop collective sale
(Source : Straits Times – 3 Mar 2010) - Allowing one owner to stop majority untenable
(Source : Straits Times – 3 Mar 2010) - Collective wish can’t be ignored
(Source : Straits Times – 3 Mar 2010) - Ultimately, drawing the line is a judgment call
(Source : Straits Times – 2 Mar 2010) - Protect reluctant parties in en bloc sales
(Source : Straits Times – 2 Mar 2010) - Move forward with refreshing sentiment on homes
(Source : Straits Times – 2 Mar 2010) - Review law on en bloc sales
(Source : Straits Times – 27 Feb 2010) - Horizon Towers lawsuits headed for trial
(Source : Business Times – 25 Feb 2010) - High Court okays Horizon Towers lawsuit
(Source : Straits Times – 25 Feb 2010) - DC rates may rise and affect en bloc sales
(Source : Business Times – 24 Feb 2010) - Collective sales set to take off again
(Source : Business Times – 12 Feb 2010) - Neptune Court’s residents approve appointment of lawyer
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 8 Feb 2010) - Collective-sale fervour returning
(Source : Sunday Times – 7 Feb 2010) - $27.5m en bloc sale in Balestier
(Source : Today – 4 Feb 2010) - Holland Hill Lodge owners’ bullish bet
(Source : The Edge – 3 Feb 2010) - Let AGM decide on starting en bloc sale committee
(Source : Straits Times – 3 Feb 2010) - En bloc sale panels should have 80% support
(Source : Straits Times – 2 Feb 2010) - Burden of disbanding panel shouldn’t fall on those against collective sale
(Source : Straits Times – 29 Jan 2010) - En bloc sale panels already have a lifespan
(Source : Straits Times – 28 Jan 2010) - Horizon Twrs defendant moves to strike out suit
(Source : Business Times – 27 Jan 2010) - En bloc sales will likely roar in Tiger year
(Source : ) - Green Lodge tender receives ‘a few’ bids
(Source : Business Times – 14 Jan 2010) - Ageing malls going for en bloc sale
(Source : Sunday Times – 10 Jan 2010)
- Green Lodge asking $135m for en bloc deal
(Source : Business Times – 31 Dec 2009) - Green Lodge condo up for en bloc sale
(Source : Straits Times – 31 Dec 2009) - Greenlodge Condominium up for collective sale, asking price S$135m
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 30 Dec 2009) - Mandarin Gardens’ enbloc sales committee disbands
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 29 Dec 2009) - Mayfair Gardens plans en bloc sale
(Source : Straits Times – 22 Dec 2009) - Mayfair Gardens up for collective sale
(Source : Business Times – 22 Dec 2009) - Mayfair Gardens collective sale site launched for tender
(Source : Business Times – 21 Dec 2009) - Dragon Mansion sold for S$101m
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 1 Dec 2009) - Dragon Mansion sold for $100.8 mln
(Source : Business Times – 1 Dec 2009) - Pine Grove residents keen to sell en bloc again
(Source : Straits Times – 25 Nov 2009) - Pine Grove owners make 3rd attempt to sell their property in collective sale
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 23 Nov 2009) - Laguna Park en bloc sale called off
(Source : Business Times – 19 Nov 2009) - Balestier factory en bloc after rezoning
(Source : Business Times – 19 Nov 2009) - Laguna Park not for sale – at least for now
(Source : Straits Times – 19 Nov 2009) - Industrial site in Balestier up for sale
(Source : Straits Times – 19 Nov 2009) - Laguna Park could go at 20% discount to initial tender price
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 26 Oct 2009) - Roxy-Pacific to buy Dragon Mansion in en bloc deal
(Source : Business Times – 21 Oct 2009) - Dragon Mansion en bloc sale sees lower offer
(Source : Straits Times – 21 Oct 2009) - Laguna Park owners mull lower sale price
(Source : Business Times – 19 Oct 2009) - Laguna Park owners to consider selling at lower price
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 18 Oct 2009) - $1.2b Laguna Park en bloc sale bid fails
(Source : Straits Times – 17 Oct 2009) - Tender for Laguna Park closes with no winner
(Source : Business Times – 17 Oct 2009) - Tender for Laguna Park en bloc sale closes unsuccessfully
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 16 Oct 2009) - A seller’s cautionary tale
(Source : Straits Times – 2 Oct 2009) - Don’t bank on en-bloc jackpot yet
(Source : Sunday Times – 27 Sep 2009) - The Meyer Place up for collective sale
(Source : Straits Times – 24 Sep 2009) - Close neighbours seek en bloc sale
(Source : Straits Times – 6th Sep 2009) - En bloc fever (or jitters)
(Source : Straits Times – 5th Sep 2009) - Queries on En Bloc Laws Min Law Replies
(Source : Straits Times – 4th Sep 2009) - Laguna Park goes on sale for $1.2b
(Source : Straits Times – 3 Sep 2009) - En bloc sales: Help minority objectors keep their homes
(Source : Straits Times – 29 Aug 2009) - Questions on collective sale laws
(Source : Straits Times – 25 Aug 2009) - En bloc appeal triggers legal questions
(Source : Straits Times – 22 Aug 2009) - Rights of all owners adequately protected
(Source : Straits Times – 21 Aug 2009) - Hong Kong’s 50-yr rule has marred skyline
(Source : Straits Times – 21 Aug 2009) - Interest in residential land picks up
(Source : Sunday Times – 16 Aug 2009) - Still waiting for changes to en bloc rules
(Source : Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009) - Private estates badly kept? Says who?
(Source : Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009) - En bloc sales: Adopt HK’s 50-year limit
(Source : Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009) - The difference
(Source : Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009) - Hotel Royal family offering Guillemard apt block for sale
(Source : Business Times – 13 Aug 2009) - En bloc debate, HK style
(Source : Straits Times – 10 Aug 2009) - Balmoral, Tagore sites for sale
(Source : Business Times – 6 Aug 2009) - Collective sales to trickle back into market, says Credo
(Source : Business Times – 17 Jul 2009) - Experts expect 5 to 10 en-bloc deals in second half of year
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 16 Jul 2009) - Condo glue case: Lower court to hear new evidence
(Source : Straits Times – 16 Jul 2009) - Horizon Towers ruling: All owners to get slice of $1.9m pie
(Source : Straits Times – 15 Jul 2009) - $120m target for first en bloc site this year
(Source : Straits Times – 15 Jul 2009) - This year’s first en bloc sale hits the market
(Source : Business Times – 15 Jul 2009) - Tender for collective sale of Dragon Mansion launched
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 14 Jul 2009) - Not collectively speaking
(Source : Today – 26 Jun 2009) - Time to revamp the Strata Titles Boards
(Source : Today – 22 Jun 2009) - S’pore could see first en bloc sale in a year by year-end
(Source : Channel NewsAsia – 16 Jun 2009) - Neptune Court privatisation surprise
(Source : The New Paper – 8 Jun 2009) - Regent Garden enbloc deal: majority owners lose appeal
(Source : Business Times – 30 May 2009) - Regent Garden majority owners’ appeal rejected
(Source : Straits Times – 30 May 2009) - Gillman Heights sale finally goes through
(Source : Straits Times – 23 May 2009) - Gillman Heights site sale: last-minute hurdles cleared
(Source : Business Times – 18 May 2009) - Gillman Heights en-bloc deal is on
(Source : Straits Times – 18 May 2009 - Jessica Cheam) - Last-minute hitch threatens sale of Gillman Heights
(Source : Straits Times – 16 May 2009) - Ex-condo chief scoffs at fine for mischief
(Source : Straits Times - 22 Apr 2009) - Glitches at Grangeford
(Source : Business Times - 15 Apr 2009) - Think of the elderly
(Source : Straits Times - 15 Apr 2009) - Scrutinise future collective sales to protect home owners
(Source : Straits Times - 14 Apr 2009) - Not the end for en bloc sales
(Source : Straits Times - 10 Apr 2009) - En blocs also about greed and money
(Source: Today April 13, 2009) - Not the end for en bloc sales
(Source : Straits Times - 10 Apr 2009) - Law’s purpose to maximise scarce land
(Source: Today April 10, 2009) - En bloc sales should be unanimous
(Source: Today April 9, 2009) - En bloc sales: Have safeguards against conflicts of interest
(Source : Straits Times - 6 Apr 2009) - Collective sale impetus fizzles out
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - Troubled Towers: A timeline
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - The lawyers: 2 1/2-year bonanza of billable hours
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - Minority owners: Sweet victory but ‘no winner’
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - The buyers: A good deal that turned sour
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - The majority-turned- minority: Mixed feelings
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - The majority sellers: Stuck with their units
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - Just glad the saga is over
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - No ill feelings over failed sale
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - Horizon Towers owners ready to move on
(Source : Sunday Times - 5 Apr 2009) - But for their grit...
(Source: Straits Times 4 March 2009) - Relook en bloc rules
(Source: Straits Times 4 March 2009) - Horizon Towers sale off
(Source : Straits Times - 3 Apr 2009) - En bloc sale of Horizon Towers falls through
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 2 Apr 2009) - Court quashes en bloc sale of Horizon Towers
(Source : Business Times - 2 Apr 2009) - Horizon Towers sale won’t go ahead
(Source : Business Times - 2 Apr 2009) - Katong Mall gets nod for collective sale
(Source : Straits Times - 12 Mar 2009) - Regent Court ruling explained
(Source : Straits Times - 11 Mar 2009) - Renewing the urban landscape
(Source : Straits Times - 28 Feb 2009) - En bloc sales partly to blame for ‘vanishing’ Singapore
(Source : Straits Times - 27 Feb 2009) - Cairnhill Heights sale: Would-be buyer pulls out
(Source : Straits Times - 20 Feb 2009) - ‘Drafting flaw’ behind saga
(Source : Today - 10 Feb 2009) - Gillman Heights appeal to halt collective sale dismissed
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 9 Feb 2009) - Gillman enbloc sale to go through
(Source : Business Times - 9 Feb 2009) - GILLMAN HEIGHTS: Final bid by 10 owners to end transaction
(Source : Straits Times - 4 Feb 2009) - HORIZON TOWERS: 2-year battle to kill deal will end on Friday
(Source : Straits Times - 4 Feb 2009) - Decision on Gillman Heights’ en bloc sale expected on Wednesday
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 3 Feb 2009) - En bloc units being rented out at half price
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 1 Feb 2009) - Ex-committee chairman charged
(Source : Today - 7 Jan 2009) - En-bloc row official on mischief rap
(Source : Straits Times - 7 Jan 2009) - Ex-chairman of Laguna Park charged with vandalism
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 6 Jan 2009) - Horizon Towers Court Case
(Source: Business Times Jan 5 2009)
- Rents to hold steady despite en bloc influx
(Source : Straits Times - 23 Dec 2008) - How to deal with pesky en blocs
(Source : Today - 23 Dec 2008) - A loophole,a headache
(Source : Today - 19 Dec 2008) - En-bloc sales: Review law on sales committees
(Source: Straits Times - 17 Dec 2008) - Just leave me alone!
(Source : Today - 16 Dec 2008) - Laguna Park clears hurdle
(Source : Business Times - 15 Dec 2008) - Laguna Park crosses 80-per-cent threshold
(Source : Today - 15 Dec 2008) - Laguna Park residents confident of reaching S$1.2b target
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 14 Dec 2008) - Laguna Park moves closer to collective sale
(Source : Today - 12 Dec 2008) - Laguna Park condo looking to get majority vote to push through en bloc sale
(Source: Channel News Asia - 11 December 2008) - High Court wants STB to hear Regent Court sale appeal
(Source : Straits Times - 31 Oct 2008) - Shop owners fight sale of Katong Mall
(Source : Straits Times - 24 Oct 2008) - Tenants left in limbo
(Source : Straits Times - 24 Oct 2008) - Parkway Centre up for sale
(Source : Straits Times - 20 Oct 2008) - Parkway Centre for sale for about $1,000 psf ppr
(Source : Business Times - 16 Oct 2008) - Parkway Centre up for collective sale
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 15 Oct 2008) - Thomson collective sale back on track after SLA appeal
(Source : Straits Times - 30 Sep 2008) - Condo’s MC chairman nabbed
(Source : Straits Times - 28 Aug 2008) - In the name of my neighbours, is there no hope for me?
(Source : Straits Times - 27 Aug 2008) - Lost neighbourliness
(Source: ST Forum, Aug 26 2008) - Linking financial gain to our homes
(Source: ST Forum, Aug 21 2008) - Fix bank-or-CPF charge problem
(Source: Straits Times 20 August 2008) - En bloc tussles take nasty turn as market cools
(Source : Straits Times - 11 Aug 2008) - Hope for owners fighting en bloc
(Source : Straits Times - 11 Aug 2008) - Maison Royale put up for collective sale
(Source : Business Times - 7 Aug 2008) - Stalemate threatens Thomson collective sale
(Source : Straits Times - 5 Aug 2008) - Laguna Park vandals strike again
(Source : Straits Times - 28 Jul 2008) - CapitaLand appeal on Gillman deadline
(Source : Straits Times - 26 Jul 2008) - Strata board rules: It’s no go for Tampines Court sale
(Source : Straits Times - 26 Jul 2008) - Cross-appeal filed for Gillman enbloc
(Source : Business Times - 25 Jul 2008) - Vandals keen on en-bloc sale damage cars
(Source : Straits Times - 24 Jul 2008) - Robin Court, 1 Robin Drive relaunched for collective sale
(Source : - Jul 2008) - Is there such a thing as a happy en bloc?
(Source : Straits Times - 22 Jul 2008) - Horizon Towers en bloc: Right call was made
(Source : Today - 21 Jul 2008) - Time to relook en bloc rules?
(Source : Weekend Today - 19 Jul 2008) - July 21 hearing for Tampines Court case
(Source : Straits Times - 19 Jul 2008) - Landmark en bloc ruling
(Source : Today - 18 Jul 2008) - Appeal against Horizon Towers sale dismissed
(Source : Straits Times - 18 Jul 2008) - En bloc: Another door closes on Horizon Towers minorities
(Source : Business Times - 18 Jul 2008) - High Court dismisses Horizon Towers en bloc appeals
(Source : Business Times - 17 Jul 2008) - Tampines Court owners file appeal
(Source : Straits Times - 16 Jul 2008) - Tampines Court collective sale in peril
(Source : Straits Times - 12 July 2008) - Slowdown in private market spells end of en bloc fever
(Source : Today - 2 Jul 2008) - End of Gillman Heights drama?
(26 June 2008) - Gillman en bloc sale to proceed
(Source : Business Times - 26 Jun 2008) - High Court dismisses appeal against Gillman Heights sale
(Source : Straits Times - 26 Jun 2008) - Gillman Heights en-bloc sale to move ahead following court’s ruling
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 25 Jun 2008) - Prime condo prices heading for long, gentle decline
(Source : Business Times - 14 Jun 2008) - En bloc blues? There’s hope, says support group
(Source : Straits Times - 12 Jun 2008) - Sub-sales market may stay active as punters sell units
(Source : Business Times - 12 Jun 2008) - Endangered landmarks
(Source: Straits Times, June 7, 2008) - Four en bloc sites back on market with lower tags
(Source : Business Times - 5 Jun 2008) - 4 sites relaunched for collective sale at lower prices
(Source : Sraits Times - 5 Jun 2008) - Developers turn landlords as property market stays quiet
(Source : Straits Times - 4 Jun 2008) - Uncertainty over lease top-ups may affect sentiment
(Source : Business Times - 4 Jun 2008) - Tuan Sing seeks stake in Katong Mall
(Source : Business Times - 2 Jun 2008) - En bloc sales bring out the worst in Singaporeans
(Source : Sunday Times - 1 Jun 2008) - Katong Mall on sale for up to $250m - amid controversy
(Source : Straits Times - 27 May 2008) - Katong Mall up for sale with $220m-$250m tag
(Source : Business Times - 27 May 2008) - Katong Mall up for collective sale by tender
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 26 May 2008) - Plot ratio increases not needed for now
(Source : Business Times - 24 May 2008) - Property prices expected to moderate
(Source : Straits Times - 24 May 2008) - Draft Master Plan 2008
- Hopes of property market rebound fading
(Source : Business Times - 22 May 2008) - Proxy votes in Mandarin Garden
(Source : Straits Times - 19 May 2008) - En bloc woes at Toh Tuck Road
(Source : New Paper - 17 May 2008) - Regent Garden owners make en bloc appeal
(Source : Weekend Today - 17 May 2008) - Regent Garden owners file appeal despite sale completion
(Source : Straits Times - 17 May 2008) - Allgreen to contest appeal related to Regent Garden
(Source : Business Times - 16 May 2008) - Committee not involved in AGM
(Source : Stratits Times - 9 May 2008) - Conduct poll before forming an en bloc committee
(Source : Today - 7 May 2008) - Growth bottlenecks are being tackled: PM
(Source : Stratits Times - 7 May 2008 - Small firms bought bulk of en bloc sale sites
(Source : Straits Times - 5 May 2008) - 31 'stayers' back en bloc resister
(Source : Today - 29 Apr 2008) - Dignity, please
(Source : Today - 28 Apr 2008) - For Ken Lee Of Airview Towers
(Source : Today - 28 / 29 Apr 2008) - The En Bloc Sale of Holland Hill Mansions
(Source : KhattarWong’s Interface - Apr 2008) - He's glad that 2-year saga is finally over
(Source : The Sunday Times - 27 Apr 2008) - What if my condo's en bloc sale fails?
(Source : The Sunday Times - 27 Apr 2008) - Goodbye, en bloc sales
(Source : The Sunday Times - 27 Apr 2008) - Doc, 53, has to finance 2nd home
(Source : The Sunday Times - 27 Apr 2008) - Deal's off but she still lucked out
(Source : The Sunday Times - 27 Apr 2008) - Couple's dream turns to nightmare
(Source : The Sunday Times - 27 Apr 2008) - Airview Towers en bloc case back to Strata Board
(Source : Straits Times - 25 Apr 2008) - Pender Court en bloc sale fails, owners keep $12m
(Source : Business Times - 25 Apr 2008) - Flaw in en-bloc mediation process
(Source : Straits Times - 23 Apr 2008) - Buyers, sellers call off collective sale of Finland Gardens
(Source : Straits Times - 22 Apr 2008) - Finland Gardens en bloc sale called off
(Source : Today - 22 Apr 2008) - Raise en-bloc consent ratio to 99%
(Source : Straits Times - 19 Apr 2008) - NUS played critical role in Gillman Heights en-bloc sale
(Source : Straits Times - 19 Apr 2008) - Court directs Regent Garden sale to Allgreen to proceed
(Source : Business Times - 17 Apr 2008) - Regent Garden owners ordered to complete en bloc sale to Allgreen
(Source : Straits Times - 17 Apr 2008) - Leedon Heights: Still home for 8 more months
(Source : Today - 16 Apr 2008) - Tulip Garden: Kim Eng’s Ronald Ooi cuts losses on condo deal
(Source : Business Times - 16 Apr 2008) - En bloc sales: Consider wider interests of society, not just economic payoffs
(Source : Business Times - 15 Apr 2008) - Some upside in failed en bloc deals
(Source : Business Times - 15 Apr 2008) - Farrer Court: CapitaLand-led group lands $2b property loan
(Source : Business Times - 12 Apr 2008) - Issues of cost, procedures bubble up in new en bloc rules.
(Source : Business Times - 12 Apr 2008) - CapitaLand, HPL secure S$2b financing facilities for Farrer Court acquisition
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 11 Apr 2008) - Property agents in race against en bloc clock
(Source : Business Times - 9 Apr 2008) - Confirmed: Tulip Garden’s en bloc sale to Bravo rescinded
(Source : Business Times - 9 Apr 2008) - $516m deal: Tulip Garden owners call off collective sale
(Source : Straits Times - 9 Apr 2008) - Was Bravo too ambitious?
(Source : Today - 9 Apr 2008) - Amber Glades on the block again, at $18m discount
(Source : Today - 9 Apr 2008) - Freehold residential site Amber Glades relaunched for en bloc sale
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 8 Apr 2008) - En bloc market suffers double whammy as investors look elsewhere
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 8 Apr 2008) - Tulip Garden sale off? How the deal went
(Source : Straits Times - 8 Apr 2008) - Tulip Garden en bloc may be called off
(Source : Business Times - 8 Apr 2008) - Royalville back with lower en bloc price tag
(Tuesday, April 8, 2008) - It’s wait-and-see for Pender Court, Tulip Garden home owners
(Source : Straits Times - 4 Apr 2008) - Futura minority owners withdraw appeal against en bloc sale
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 3 Apr 2008) - Makeway View en bloc deal falls through
(Source : Business Times - 1 Apr 2008) - Pinetree back with lower en bloc asking price
(Source : Business Times - 1 Apr 2008) - Makeway View en bloc deal falls through
(Source : Straits Times - 1 Apr 2008) - Two en bloc sales delayed; developer asks for more time
(Source : Straits Times - 1 Apr 2008) - Pinetree Condominium site relaunched for sale by tender
(Source : Channel NewsAsia - 31 Mar 2008) - No regrets: En-bloc buyers, that is
(Source : Straits Times - 29 Mar 2008) - En-bloc properties hardly slums
(Source : Straits Times - 29 Mar 2008) - Condo spirit better than HDB’s
(Source : Straits Times - 29 Mar 2008) - Poser over homes with 99-year lease
(Source : Straits Times - 29 Mar 2008) - En bloc: importance of being earnest
(Source : Business Times - 27 Mar 2008) - Landmark Tower goes en bloc again, at lower price tag
(Source : Business Times - 26 Mar 2008) - High Court rejects Airview Towers’ collective sale
(Source : Straits Times - 26 Mar 2008) - En-bloc sales: Be sensitive to each other
(Source : Straits Times - 25 Mar 2008) - Horizon minorities say sale done in bad faith
(Source : Business Times - 20 Mar 2008) - Horizon Towers case back in High Court
(Source : Straits Times - 20 Mar 2008) - Sense of kampung in condos overstated
(Thursday, March 20, 2008) - Daddy’s dilemma
(Source : Straits Times - 20 Mar 2008) - Right to hold property guaranteed by law
(Source : Straits Times - 20 Mar 2008) - Higher price not negotiated because of ‘commission agreement’, court told
(Source : Today - 20 Mar 2008) - It all depends on age for Gillman Heights
(Source : Today - 19 Mar 2008) - Only one collective sale done so far this year
(Source : Straits Times - 18 Mar 2008) - NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query
(Source : ChannelNewsAsia - 17 Mar 2008) - En - bloc sales eroding our ’sense of kampung’
(Source : Straits Times - 17 Mar 2008)
- The future - at a cost
(Source : Straits Times - 11 Aug 2007) - We are destroying what is uniquely Singaporean
(Source : Straits Times - 11 Aug 2007) - Goodbye famous 5?
(Source : Straits Times - 5 Aug 2007) - Don't want to move out, don't like the payout
(Source : Straits Times - 16 Jun 2007)
Feb 8, 2000
2005
Dec - Self-appointment of pro-tem En Bloc Committee
Dec - Informal valuation $389,719,233.00
2006
11 Feb - 1st Dialogue session
25 Feb - 2nd Dialogue session
19 April - Draft CSA and cover letter received by owners
14 May - CSA Dialogue session
05 May - First signing of CSA
15th/20th/21st/ 27th May 2006 - CSA signing
09 July - Dialogue session
15 July - CSA Dialogue session
29 July - Update by pro-tem committee tagged after the AGM
05 Aug - Dialogue Session
12 Aug - Dialogue session
.
SC NOT SEEN AGAIN UNTIL AFTER THE SALE>>>
.
SC NOT SEEN AGAIN UNTIL AFTER THE SALE>>>
2007
21 January - purported 80% threshold reached
23 January - Press Release:- Sea Breeze apartments sold for $53.8 million
In Tampines, a 22-year-old former HUDC development, Tampines Court, has been put up for collective sale with an indicative value of $527 million, inclusive of development charges and differential premium of about $107 million.
It is marketed by Dennis Wee Group. Investment sales director Jimmy Teng said the 702,458 sq ft site has a plot ratio of 2.8 and a potential gross floor area of at least two million sq ft.
‘The successful developer could build about 1,700 units with an average size of 1,250 sq ft,’ he said, adding that developers also have the option to bid for one of the two subdivided parcels.
Source: The Business Times, 23 January 2007
In Tampines, a 22-year-old former HUDC development, Tampines Court, has been put up for collective sale with an indicative value of $527 million, inclusive of development charges and differential premium of about $107 million.
It is marketed by Dennis Wee Group. Investment sales director Jimmy Teng said the 702,458 sq ft site has a plot ratio of 2.8 and a potential gross floor area of at least two million sq ft.
‘The successful developer could build about 1,700 units with an average size of 1,250 sq ft,’ he said, adding that developers also have the option to bid for one of the two subdivided parcels.
Source: The Business Times, 23 January 2007
27 January - Press Release:- Tampines Court up for en bloc sale (Weekend Today)
31 January - Announcement of tender in Straits Times
04 February - 80.00% - Statutory 8 week Notice
12 February - Press release:- Collective sale site in next wave may fetch around $1 billion each
Over
at Tampines Court, marketing agent Dennis Wee and the appointed
lawyer for the majority owners, Phang & Co, plan to make the
huge, 702,162 sq ft leasehold site more digestible to prospective
developers by dividing it into two smaller plots.
Developers will be invited to bid for one or both sites. The award will seek to maximise the overall sale price achieved for the two sites combined.
‘If one party submits the highest bid for one plot and another for the second plot, then both developers will have to jointly agree to buy the entire site as the two halves must be sold together,’ explains SK Phang, principal in the law firm.
After completion of the sale of the site, the developers would then partition the site into the two halves and each developer will become the sole owner of the half he has bid for.
As far as owners of the 560 units in the estate are concerned, their sale proceeds will be the average of their share value in the estate and the floor area of their unit – regardless of which subdivided plot their unit stands on.
Source: The Business Times, 12 February 2007
Developers will be invited to bid for one or both sites. The award will seek to maximise the overall sale price achieved for the two sites combined.
‘If one party submits the highest bid for one plot and another for the second plot, then both developers will have to jointly agree to buy the entire site as the two halves must be sold together,’ explains SK Phang, principal in the law firm.
After completion of the sale of the site, the developers would then partition the site into the two halves and each developer will become the sole owner of the half he has bid for.
As far as owners of the 560 units in the estate are concerned, their sale proceeds will be the average of their share value in the estate and the floor area of their unit – regardless of which subdivided plot their unit stands on.
Source: The Business Times, 12 February 2007
08 March - Close of Tender
25 March - Sold by private treaty
Purchase price: $395,000,000.00 + $10 million Beta Sum = $405 million
Dev. charge + Dif. Premium = $107 million
$260 psf of potential gross floor area. (pgfa) including developmental charges and differential premium.
*Average gross sale price per unit : ~$705K before adjusting for Alpha sums, deduction of costs and expenses etc(as stated in property agent letter dated 27 March 2007)
28 March - Press Release:- Tampines Court being sold for $405 million (Business Times)
28 March - Dialogue session
1-April - Dialogue session
21 April - Sale and Purchase presentation
31 March - 80.71% - Statutory 8 week Notice
03 May - Outline Planning Permission (OPP)
25 May - 81.6% - Statutory 8 week Notice
22 June - Upgrading to 99 yrs lease
30 June - Minority Dialogue session
19 July - 81.6% - Statutory 8 week Notice
21 July - EOGM
26 July - RPA in principle date of approval
28 July - AGM
12 Aug -
19, 20 August - Collection of disbursement fee ($781.25) from majority owners
5 September - Appointment of Valuer
12 September - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice
06 November - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice
27 December - Notice of application for Sale in 4 Newspapers
31 December - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice
2008
TAMPINES COURT CASE: STB 02/2008
07 January - Application for sale to the STB
18-22 January - minority objections filed
29 February - Day 1 minority mediation at the STB . Group of 39 legally represented, plus 4 single objectors with no legal representation.
10 April - Day 2 minority mediation
09 June - Day 3 minority mediation
16,17,18 June - STB Hearing. Group of 32 minority legally represented and 2 independent minority.
19 June - Buyer does not agree to amend the S&P Agreement (Beta Sum)
23 June - Interlocutory Application to Amend Application (in chambers).
Application withdrawn
27 June - Buyer not minded to agree to the extension of time (S&P)
30 June - Interlocutory Application to bring forward the date for the adjourned hearing
02 July - Minority objection to bring date forward
09 July - Arguments for and against presented
10 July - Further arguments added
11 July - Application dismissed by STB
16 July - majority apply to High Court to have the date of hearing brought forward : High Court originating Summons 941 2008/P
18 July - High Court Originating Summons 941 2008/P Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman and Another v Attorney-General[2008] SGHC 147
Court allows date to be brought forward
21 July - STB Hearing day 4 and Majority Oral Submission
22 July - Minority Oral Submission
23 July - Written submission
24 July - Extra submissions?
25 July - STB dismissed the sale. Grounds for dismissal: lack of good faith in sale price and method of distribution.
25 July midnight- Qualifying Certificate expiration, Sales and purchase agreement expires.
************************
The End of En bloc Round 1
************************
26 July - Annual AGM
.
Aug
- Aug 2009: general repairs to the estate. New car labels. New Access
gate cards. Tree pruning and general landscaping works. New CCTV camera
system at guard houses and side gates. Accounting problems solved.
2009
Aug 2009 - Annual AGM. Repainting & Repair works approved.
Oct 2009 - Repainting of estate, re-tiling of ground floor lift lobby, re-tiling of low-rise ground floor. New letterboxes, signage, dustbins, benches, replacement of corroded water pipes and other R&R works.
2010
April 2010: estate repainting and other R&R works completed.
Over 20% unit turnover since Aug 2008
Gathering of requisitions for a second attempt at a collective sale by a new owner in 2010
29 Nov - letter of requisition for EOGM from less than 20% of owners by share value to the Management Council
2011
10 Jan - Notice of EGM for the purpose of collective sale sent to all SPs with 29 Nov letter showing less than 20% by share value of SP's requisitioning.
24 Jan - Amended
Notice of EOGM for the purpose of collective sale with new requisition
letter dated 19 Dec 2010 with amended list of requisitionists
29 Jan - EGM 1 for the purpose of Collective Sale of Tampines Court (2pm)
Quorum: 47% at 2.30pm
Number of SPs elected to the sale committee: 12 (6 new owners since 2009, 6 old owners)
One nominee refused to give full disclosure of her interests and that of her associates' interests in the estate.
Itshometome later unearthed that this SC member had not disclosed :-
a) her co-mortgagee's second unit in the estate and
b) her sister's holding of 2 units in the estate.
Subsequent emails to the managing agent to void this member's nomination (in accordance with the Schedule) proved fruitless.
Letter dated Mar 24 to sale committee on the matter also proved fruitless.
Email
to en bloc solicitor went unanswered but was followed shortly by the
resignation of the said SC member in Aug 2011 for 'personal reasons'.
Time
taken between EGM 1 and resignation of errant SC member: 7 months. So,
no one actally 'voided' her nomination thereby proving that Paragraph
(2) of the Third Schedule is bogus :
he
shall, before his election, declare at the general meeting convened
for such election, the nature and extent of all such conflicts of
interest or potential conflicts of interest.
(2) The election of any person who fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) shall be void.
(2) The election of any person who fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) shall be void.
26 Feb - SC Meeting
16 Apr - SC Meeting: 5 Marketing Agent presentations
03 May - SC Meeting: Shortlisting of Marketing Agents
23 May - Requisition letter to managing agent for EGM 2
04 Jun - Notice of EGM 2 sent to SPs (dated 4 Jun)
18 Jun - SC Meeting: Legal presentation no.1
25 Jun - SC Meeting: Legal presentation no.2
02 Jul - EGM 2 for the purpose of collective sale of Tampines Court (2pm)
Quorum: 30.71% (172 Units with share value 688) at 2.20pm
10 Aug - SC Meeting: Draft CSA
10 Aug - SC Meeting: Resignation of 2 SC members, amended CSA
09 Sep - Notice of EGM 3 sent to SPs (dated 8th Sep 2011). No CSA attached
20 Sep - SC Meeting: EGM 3 Agenda, Draft CSA, Reserve price, Recess Area
20 Sep - Draft CSA (dated 23 Aug) sent to owners.
- No reserve price
- Schedule 1: owners and units: blank
- Schedule 2: method of Apportionment: blank
- Schedule 3: Terms of Appointment of Solicitor: blank
- Schedule 5: Members of the Sale Committee: blank
- Schedule 6: The representatives: blank
Resolution 2.1 was dropped from the Agenda
2.1 To resolve and approve the terms and conditions of the CSA
01 Oct - SC Meeting: CSA discussion with lawyers and SPs
12 Nov - SC Meeting: no quorum:
19 Nov -SC Meeting: resignation of SC member, letter of appointment of solicitor and MA, statement of income & expenditure of the SC, the RP, breakdown of En Bloc Fund, consider motion sent in by SP, finalisation of resolutions for EGM 4
20 Dec - Notice for EGM 4 sent to SPs (dated 15th Dec) . Draft CSA (9th Dec) included
2012
07 Jan - EGM 4 for the purpose of collective sale of Tampines Court (1.00pm)
(unofficial results):
12 Jan - FIRST SIGNING OF CSA
14 Jan - SC Emergency Meeting
08 Feb - 1st STATUTORY NOTICE (dated 9th Feb)
11 Feb - SC Meeting - resignation of SC member, discussion of leaflet distributed by SP, discussion of insidious comment(s) in my blog, discussion of sale of unit by SC member
11 Feb - Signing session
10 Mar - SC Tea-Time with SPs
12 Mar - Signing session,
12 Mar - 2nd STATUTORY NOTICE (dated 9th Mar 2012)
22 Mar - Signing session
22 Mar - Emergency meeting to resolve to open an account with the Bank Of India for ESF cheques.
05 Apr - Signing session
05 Apr- 3rd STATUTORY NOTICE
16 Apr - Signing session & SC meeting
26 Apr - Signing session & SC meeting / Resignation of Treasurer Amos Goh
03 May - 4th STATUTORY NOTICE
31 May - 5th STATUTORY NOTICE was nor posted on the board
28 Jun - 6th STATUTORY NOTICE / SC meeting
07 Jul - Signing session
17 Jul - Signing session
26 Jul - 7th STATUTORY NOTICE
28 Jul - Dialogue with owners
30 Jul - Signing Session
23 Aug - 8th STATUTORY NOTICE
10 Sep - Signing Session
18 Sep - Signing Session
20 Sep - Signing Session
.....
Data lost
22 Mar - Emergency meeting to resolve to open an account with the Bank Of India for ESF cheques.
05 Apr - Signing session
05 Apr- 3rd STATUTORY NOTICE
16 Apr - Signing session & SC meeting
26 Apr - Signing session & SC meeting / Resignation of Treasurer Amos Goh
03 May - 4th STATUTORY NOTICE
31 May - 5th STATUTORY NOTICE was nor posted on the board
28 Jun - 6th STATUTORY NOTICE / SC meeting
07 Jul - Signing session
17 Jul - Signing session
26 Jul - 7th STATUTORY NOTICE
28 Jul - Dialogue with owners
30 Jul - Signing Session
23 Aug - 8th STATUTORY NOTICE
10 Sep - Signing Session
18 Sep - Signing Session
20 Sep - Signing Session
.....
Data lost
Feb 4, 2000
The Horizon Towers Appellate Court Decision 02 April 2009
defines the duties of the Sale Committee
"(2) An SC was the agent of all the subsidiary proprietors in relation to the collective sale of their strata units as a result of which a fiduciary relationship arose between the SC and the subsidiary proprietors. Since under the statutory collective sale scheme, an SC had the power to sell the units of objecting subsidiary proprietors against their wishes, the need for the imposition of high standards of conduct upon the SC, not only in relation to the consenting but to the objecting subsidiary proprietors as well, was even more pressing than in the case of an ordinary common law agency relationship. Given that the SCC owed fiduciary duties qua agent to the owners of the units in a strata development collectively, the SC had obligations akin to that of a trustee with a power of sale. The SC's duties included (a) the duty of loyalty or fidelity; (b) the duty of even-handedness; (c) the duty to avoid any conflict of interest (d) the duty to make full disclosure of relevant information; (e) the duty to obtain the best price for the subsidiary proprietors; at [104],[108],[113],[124] and [134]." Source;-Summary of Case
Failure to consult the consenting subsidiary proprietors
193 Finally, the original SC had breached its duty of conscientiousness by failing to consult the consenting subsidiary proprietors when some of its members had reasonable doubts about whether the original mandate to sell the Property at $500m still reflected the wishes of the subsidiary proprietors.
It would be fair to say that the SC was aware that many of the subsidiary proprietors, when they entered into the CSA, had an expectation of a substantial premium over the prevailing market prices if and when the sale was entered into. Prior to issuing that letter, therefore, it ought to have confirmed that the consenting subsidiary proprietors wished the sale to proceed on the basis of the original mandate. Bharat Mandloi’s testimony that the SC had refused to go back to the subsidiary proprietors for fear that the sale would be “as good as dead” (see [31] above) emphatically revealed its dereliction of its duty of conscientiousness as trustee of the power of sale.
Duty to obtain the best price
defines the duties of the Sale Committee
The duties of an SC
134 Having regard to our earlier analysis, the duties of an SC include (but are not limited to): (a) the duty of loyalty or fidelity; (b) the duty of even-handedness; (c) the duty to avoid any conflict of interest; (d) the duty to make full disclosure of relevant information; and (e) the duty to act with conscientiousness. As, under s 84A(9)(a)(i) of the LTSA, the price of the collective sale is an ingredient of good faith in the transaction, the SC must act with conscientiousness to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable for the property – in short, to behave as a prudent owner would. We will now give our views on what these duties entail.
134 Having regard to our earlier analysis, the duties of an SC include (but are not limited to): (a) the duty of loyalty or fidelity; (b) the duty of even-handedness; (c) the duty to avoid any conflict of interest; (d) the duty to make full disclosure of relevant information; and (e) the duty to act with conscientiousness. As, under s 84A(9)(a)(i) of the LTSA, the price of the collective sale is an ingredient of good faith in the transaction, the SC must act with conscientiousness to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable for the property – in short, to behave as a prudent owner would. We will now give our views on what these duties entail.
"(2) An SC was the agent of all the subsidiary proprietors in relation to the collective sale of their strata units as a result of which a fiduciary relationship arose between the SC and the subsidiary proprietors. Since under the statutory collective sale scheme, an SC had the power to sell the units of objecting subsidiary proprietors against their wishes, the need for the imposition of high standards of conduct upon the SC, not only in relation to the consenting but to the objecting subsidiary proprietors as well, was even more pressing than in the case of an ordinary common law agency relationship. Given that the SCC owed fiduciary duties qua agent to the owners of the units in a strata development collectively, the SC had obligations akin to that of a trustee with a power of sale. The SC's duties included (a) the duty of loyalty or fidelity; (b) the duty of even-handedness; (c) the duty to avoid any conflict of interest (d) the duty to make full disclosure of relevant information; (e) the duty to obtain the best price for the subsidiary proprietors; at [104],[108],[113],[124] and [134]." Source;-Summary of Case
.
and again since it bears repeating......
and again since it bears repeating......
.
9) .... It was not the law that a fiduciary was entitled to rely on legal advice alone to exonerate itself from any breach of duty. While a trustee of a power of sale was entitled to obtain advice from experts on matters that were not within his competence or knowledge, ultimately the trustee has to make his own decision in good faith, responsibly and reasonably; at[197],[203] and [210]. Source:-Summary of case
9) .... It was not the law that a fiduciary was entitled to rely on legal advice alone to exonerate itself from any breach of duty. While a trustee of a power of sale was entitled to obtain advice from experts on matters that were not within his competence or knowledge, ultimately the trustee has to make his own decision in good faith, responsibly and reasonably; at[197],[203] and [210]. Source:-Summary of case
.
The relationship between an SC and subsidiary proprietors.
.
104 In our view, the SC is the agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively in relation to the collective sale of their strata units.
104 In our view, the SC is the agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively in relation to the collective sale of their strata units.
.
105 Section 84(1A) of the LTSA constitutes statutory confirmation of an SC's agent status for all subsidiary proprietors collectively.
105 Section 84(1A) of the LTSA constitutes statutory confirmation of an SC's agent status for all subsidiary proprietors collectively.
.
107 As the SC is an agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively, there is no point in which the SC may act solely in the interests of any group of subsidiary proprietors, whether they are consenting or objecting proprietors. When an SC is first appointed, it is with a view to achieving a collective sale for the benefit of all subsidiary proprietors.
107 As the SC is an agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively, there is no point in which the SC may act solely in the interests of any group of subsidiary proprietors, whether they are consenting or objecting proprietors. When an SC is first appointed, it is with a view to achieving a collective sale for the benefit of all subsidiary proprietors.
.
However once the requisite consent is obtained and the interests of the objecting subsidiary proprietors become distinguishable from those of the consenting subsidiary proprietors the SC's role becomes that of an impartial agent acting for both camps. In other words, the SC must hold an even hand between the interests.
.
However once the requisite consent is obtained and the interests of the objecting subsidiary proprietors become distinguishable from those of the consenting subsidiary proprietors the SC's role becomes that of an impartial agent acting for both camps. In other words, the SC must hold an even hand between the interests.
.
The SC as a fiduciary
.
108 A fiduciary relationship between an SC and the subsidiary proprietors arises from the underlying agency relationship.
108 A fiduciary relationship between an SC and the subsidiary proprietors arises from the underlying agency relationship.
.
113 An agent may affect the rights of his principle in various degrees of detriment to the principle.
113 An agent may affect the rights of his principle in various degrees of detriment to the principle.
.
There would naturally be an inbuilt inclination (or bias) on the part of an SC to sell rather than not to sell. The need for the imposition of high standards of accountability and conduct upon the SC vis-a-vis not only the consenting, but also the objecting subsidiary proprietors is therefore even more pressing than in the case of ordinary common law agency.
There would naturally be an inbuilt inclination (or bias) on the part of an SC to sell rather than not to sell. The need for the imposition of high standards of accountability and conduct upon the SC vis-a-vis not only the consenting, but also the objecting subsidiary proprietors is therefore even more pressing than in the case of ordinary common law agency.
.
A "trustee' of the power of sale
A "trustee' of the power of sale
.
118 Unlike a typical property agent which has only one principle, an SC has for principles a large number of subsidiary proprietors divided into two main groups if they cannot agree to sell their properties collectively. As mentioned above (at [107]), the SC cannot simply carry out the letter of its instructions from the consenting principles and disregard the interests of the objecting principles altogether.
118 Unlike a typical property agent which has only one principle, an SC has for principles a large number of subsidiary proprietors divided into two main groups if they cannot agree to sell their properties collectively. As mentioned above (at [107]), the SC cannot simply carry out the letter of its instructions from the consenting principles and disregard the interests of the objecting principles altogether.
.
The duties of the SC
.
134 ....... the duties of an SC include (but are not limited to) : (a) a duty of loyalty and fidelity; (b) the duty of even-handedness; (c) the duty to avoid any conflict of interest; (d) the duty to make full disclosure of relevant information; and (e) the duty to act with conscientiousness. As, under s84A(9)(a)(i) of the LTSA, the price of the collective sale is an ingredient of good faith in the transaction, the SC must act with conscientiousness to obtain the best price reasonable obtainable for the property- in short, to behave as a prudent owner would.
134 ....... the duties of an SC include (but are not limited to) : (a) a duty of loyalty and fidelity; (b) the duty of even-handedness; (c) the duty to avoid any conflict of interest; (d) the duty to make full disclosure of relevant information; and (e) the duty to act with conscientiousness. As, under s84A(9)(a)(i) of the LTSA, the price of the collective sale is an ingredient of good faith in the transaction, the SC must act with conscientiousness to obtain the best price reasonable obtainable for the property- in short, to behave as a prudent owner would.
.
Duty of loyalty or fidelity
Duty of loyalty or fidelity
.
135 The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty, the principle is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations.
135 The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty, the principle is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations.
.
The duty of even-handedness
The duty of even-handedness
.
136 The duty of even handedness is the duty of impartiality that is implicit in parliament's recognition of the need to safeguard the interests of the minority in a collective sale
Duty to avoid any potential conflict of interest
136 The duty of even handedness is the duty of impartiality that is implicit in parliament's recognition of the need to safeguard the interests of the minority in a collective sale
Duty to avoid any potential conflict of interest
.
138 It is important to note that these prospective duties are targeted against potential (not merely actual) conflict. A fiduciary should not even contemplate procuring a personal advantage, let alone secure one.
138 It is important to note that these prospective duties are targeted against potential (not merely actual) conflict. A fiduciary should not even contemplate procuring a personal advantage, let alone secure one.
.
....the law sensibly does not require proof of an actual conflict of interest where such an allegation is made. The law only requires that there is a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest,since it is impossible to conduct an inquiry into the subjective motives which influenced a fiduciary’s conduct to determine whether a genuine conflict of interest occurred.
....the law sensibly does not require proof of an actual conflict of interest where such an allegation is made. The law only requires that there is a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest,since it is impossible to conduct an inquiry into the subjective motives which influenced a fiduciary’s conduct to determine whether a genuine conflict of interest occurred.
.
Duty of full disclosure
Duty of full disclosure
.
147 The fiduciary must disclose the personal interest as soon as a possible conflict arises, or as soon after as practicable. An "interest' may be constituted by "the presence of some personal concern of possible significant pecuniary value in a decision taken, or transaction affected, by the fiduciary"
147 The fiduciary must disclose the personal interest as soon as a possible conflict arises, or as soon after as practicable. An "interest' may be constituted by "the presence of some personal concern of possible significant pecuniary value in a decision taken, or transaction affected, by the fiduciary"
.
151 In our view, an SC member who acquires additional units in the strata development (especially if they are financed by bank loans) before or after he becomes a member of the SC must disclose such interest to all the subsidiary proprietors including the objecting owners.
151 In our view, an SC member who acquires additional units in the strata development (especially if they are financed by bank loans) before or after he becomes a member of the SC must disclose such interest to all the subsidiary proprietors including the objecting owners.
.
Duty of conscientiousness
Duty of conscientiousness
153 An SC clearly has a duty to act conscientiously in exercising the power of collective sale. We note that trustees owe a duty of care to their beneficiaries and are bound to take all precautions in the management of the trust property as an ordinary prudent man of business would take in his own affairs
Example of a failure of duty of conscientiousness (HT):
Failure to consult the consenting subsidiary proprietors
193 Finally, the original SC had breached its duty of conscientiousness by failing to consult the consenting subsidiary proprietors when some of its members had reasonable doubts about whether the original mandate to sell the Property at $500m still reflected the wishes of the subsidiary proprietors.
It would be fair to say that the SC was aware that many of the subsidiary proprietors, when they entered into the CSA, had an expectation of a substantial premium over the prevailing market prices if and when the sale was entered into. Prior to issuing that letter, therefore, it ought to have confirmed that the consenting subsidiary proprietors wished the sale to proceed on the basis of the original mandate. Bharat Mandloi’s testimony that the SC had refused to go back to the subsidiary proprietors for fear that the sale would be “as good as dead” (see [31] above) emphatically revealed its dereliction of its duty of conscientiousness as trustee of the power of sale.
Duty to obtain the best price
154 The duty to obtain the best price arises out of the SC’s duty to act conscientiously as well as to act even-handedly in the collective interest of all the subsidiary proprietors. The duty to obtain the best sale price is particularly crucial for the objecting subsidiary proprietors.
(A) INCREASING THE PROSPECTS OF OBTAINING THE BEST PRICE
157 In order to increase the prospects of obtaining the best price for the property, an SC qua prudent owner ought to exercise due diligence in appointing a competent property agent to market the property and negotiate with potential purchasers. An SC ought to market (through the property agent) the property for a reasonable period of time to the largest number of potential purchasers in order to create the widest catchment of offers.
158 The SC should follow up on all expressions of interest and offers that result from its marketing efforts. It should carry out sufficient investigations and due diligence to determine their genuineness, and not ignore them merely on the basis of its own perception or judgment.
159 Where reasonable, it should try and create competition between interested purchasers so as to obtain the best sale price, for instance by alerting a potential purchaser to the existence of other expressions of interest or offers (at the same or higher price) for the property.
(A) INCREASING THE PROSPECTS OF OBTAINING THE BEST PRICE
157 In order to increase the prospects of obtaining the best price for the property, an SC qua prudent owner ought to exercise due diligence in appointing a competent property agent to market the property and negotiate with potential purchasers. An SC ought to market (through the property agent) the property for a reasonable period of time to the largest number of potential purchasers in order to create the widest catchment of offers.
158 The SC should follow up on all expressions of interest and offers that result from its marketing efforts. It should carry out sufficient investigations and due diligence to determine their genuineness, and not ignore them merely on the basis of its own perception or judgment.
159 Where reasonable, it should try and create competition between interested purchasers so as to obtain the best sale price, for instance by alerting a potential purchaser to the existence of other expressions of interest or offers (at the same or higher price) for the property.
Duty to consult the subsidiary proprietors
166 Finally, whenever there is reasonable doubt as to the proper course to adopt, the SC ought to seek fresh instructions or guidance from the consenting subsidiary proprietors from whom it draws its mandate. It is true that the LTSA and most collective sale agreements do not contain any specific provision requiring an SC to obtain approval from the consenting subsidiary proprietors of the sale price before the SC issues an option to the potential purchaser (para 7(1)(g) of the Third Schedule to the LTSA provides that an SC shall convene a general meeting for the purposes of considering the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement, but para 7(4) states that this need only be convened after the close of a public tender or auction or after the SC has entered into a private contract for sale). However, an SC’s duty to consult with the consenting subsidiary proprietors arises out of its fiduciary obligations, independently of its contractual obligations (see [109] above).
167 An SC cannot rely on a mechanistic or literal compliance with its statutory and contractual obligations to escape indictment for breach of its obligations as fiduciary of the subsidiary proprietors. The first principle is that an SC has to work for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. This will no doubt involve going beyond just paying lip service to the relevant procedural rules under the LTSA and its mandate under the collective sale agreement. Indeed, in evaluating the conduct of an SC, the contextual conditions in which the power of sale is exercised is everything.
166 Finally, whenever there is reasonable doubt as to the proper course to adopt, the SC ought to seek fresh instructions or guidance from the consenting subsidiary proprietors from whom it draws its mandate. It is true that the LTSA and most collective sale agreements do not contain any specific provision requiring an SC to obtain approval from the consenting subsidiary proprietors of the sale price before the SC issues an option to the potential purchaser (para 7(1)(g) of the Third Schedule to the LTSA provides that an SC shall convene a general meeting for the purposes of considering the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement, but para 7(4) states that this need only be convened after the close of a public tender or auction or after the SC has entered into a private contract for sale). However, an SC’s duty to consult with the consenting subsidiary proprietors arises out of its fiduciary obligations, independently of its contractual obligations (see [109] above).
167 An SC cannot rely on a mechanistic or literal compliance with its statutory and contractual obligations to escape indictment for breach of its obligations as fiduciary of the subsidiary proprietors. The first principle is that an SC has to work for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. This will no doubt involve going beyond just paying lip service to the relevant procedural rules under the LTSA and its mandate under the collective sale agreement. Indeed, in evaluating the conduct of an SC, the contextual conditions in which the power of sale is exercised is everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)