Poser over homes with 99 year leases
Straits Times 29 March 2008
.
Enbloc properties hardly slums
IN HIS letter, ‘Sense of kampung in condos overstated’ (March 20), Mr Lau Chee Kian warned that ‘old estates’ could ‘degenerate into slums like in many countries’. Nassim Park was only 14 years old when it went en bloc although it was in very good condition.
Horizon Hill Towers, the subject of the long running and costly acrimonious dispute now being heard in the High Court, is in pristine condition even though it is older than Nassim Park. Cavenagh Gardens in Cavenagh Road was built in the early 1960s whereas Pacific Mansion in the River Valley area and built slightly later are now around 45 years old and can hardly be considered slums by any standard, being in much better condition than some of the HDB flats only about 20 years old.
Whether an estate would turn into a slum is more dependent on the maintenance rather than age, as the many examples in China, India, Europe and others where some of the buildings are centuries old, have shown. ‘The fact that the majority are willing to sell needs not and does not justify the compulsory sale by dissenting subsidiary proprietors, as the former’s decision could have been misconceived, ill advised, wrongly influenced, etc, and, as it is, turned out to be wrong, because in most cases the price they sold was too low. Dispute, acrimony and ruined lives could have been avoided from the beginning if all those concerned had faced up to the root causes and inherent deficiencies faced in most management corporations.
Bin Hee Heng
Straits Times 29 March 2008
.
Condo spirit better than HDB's
MS SUSAN Prior’s letter, ‘En bloc sales eroding our sense of kampung’ (March 17), about the sense of kampung in condominiums is certainly not overstated. The kampung spirit in condominiums is very much better than in HDB estates where residents hardly interact with each other.
In fact, all en-bloc sales are motivated by greed, worsened by en-bloc speculators who hope to make quick profits by flipping the properties without any feelings for the residents who do not want to sell. It is a load of rubbish to say that enbloc is good for rejuvenation of an estate. In this regard, I would suggest that the Government raise the percentage of approval required from the present 80 per cent to 90 per cent in order to protect the interests of the minority owners.
William Tay Kay Chiak
Straits Tiems 29 March 2008
.
No regrets: enbloc buyers that is
I REFER to Mr Lau Chee Kian’s ‘Sense of kampung in condos overstated’ (March 20) in response to Ms Susan Prior’s ‘En-bloc sales eroding our sense of kampung’ (March17). In almost all en-bloc sales, most owners wished they had not sold their homes because they realised too late.
Has no property developer, who has made purchases in hundreds of en-bloc sales so far, ever regretted its land-banking? For confirmation, we should hear from a horse’s mouth, as reported in the Business Times on Nov 15 last year, ‘S’pore home price gains set to slow’: ‘Mr Lim Ee Seng, chief executive officer of Frasers Centrepoint Group, one of the biggest buyers in en-bloc sales, says: ‘We are still looking to boost our land bank, but we are opportunistic and won’t pay current values because our costs would be too high.’ The price gain has helped the developer on earlier purchases of existing apartments, which are sold at a profit. An example is the St Thomas Suites development in the city’s downtown, where apartments were recently sold at $2,189 a square foot. ‘We bought the site of St Thomas Suites at $600 per square foot,’ said Mr Lim in the report. That’s a whopping 365 per cent profit that the Frasers Centrepoint Group has made. That’s why, with their ‘paltry windfall’, the majority owners will never be able to buy a replacement unit. Sad to say, they must regret and downgrade.
Mr Lau rightly points out: ‘The kampung era is long gone. The world has moved on.’ The tremendous advances in science and technology have transformed our way of life altogether, chief of which is changing us from a caring into an impersonal society. Fortunately, Singapore has led in the field of preserving our cultural heritage from being eroded by these negative influences. Singapore has, by and large, succeeded in preserving our core values shared by all in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society. And the ’sense of kampung’ embodied in our core values is part and parcel of our rich cultural heritage.
Admittedly, it is an uphill task to mobilise every Singaporean to imbibe the kampung spirit of yesteryear, but it is not an impossible task. The majority owners in an en-bloc sale cannot be regarded as a litmus test of their view on the ’sense of kampung’. Our uniquely Singapore has, against all odds, managed to accomplish almost everything that we have set our hearts and minds to do - most difficult of all is in uniting a people as pluralistic as Singapore into an almost homogenous nation in just 42 years. And it is a matter of time before the long and tedious process of re-moulding our people into this tremendous sense of kampung camaraderie bear fruits. Succeed we will.
Han Soon Juan
Straits Times 29 March 2008
.
Mar 29, 2008
Mar 28, 2008
That 'earnest' article
Business Times 27 March 2008
.
"New rules can’t prevent fights led by greed but tussles should be less explosive," writes the managing director of Credo Real Estate.
"There were also numerous complaints about how the process was handled, claims of bad faith and the railroading of minority interests."
"Disputes in such sales are not likely to go away, even with the introduction of the new laws, as no amount of legislation can prevent disagreements or actions led by greed or dishonesty."
An article written from the perspective of a property agency - who thinks that all disputes are led by greed or dishonesty. Since it is the minority who dispute the sale before the Board, I am assuming the writer is attaching the greedy & dishonest labels only to them. But that is not what you hear from objecting minority owners at the STB. The litany of complaints against the less than honest tactics of property agents is legendary. Yet the blame apparently falls on the gullibility of owners and not on the unethical behaviours of agents. Agents play a pivotal role in enbloc and a closer inspection of their actions is warranted and certain behaviours ought not to be just frowned upon, but banned outright. There is a right way to go about your business and a wrong way. It's time to stop blaming the victim and go after the culprit.
"New rules can’t prevent fights led by greed but tussles should be less explosive," writes the managing director of Credo Real Estate.
"There were also numerous complaints about how the process was handled, claims of bad faith and the railroading of minority interests."
"Disputes in such sales are not likely to go away, even with the introduction of the new laws, as no amount of legislation can prevent disagreements or actions led by greed or dishonesty."
An article written from the perspective of a property agency - who thinks that all disputes are led by greed or dishonesty. Since it is the minority who dispute the sale before the Board, I am assuming the writer is attaching the greedy & dishonest labels only to them. But that is not what you hear from objecting minority owners at the STB. The litany of complaints against the less than honest tactics of property agents is legendary. Yet the blame apparently falls on the gullibility of owners and not on the unethical behaviours of agents. Agents play a pivotal role in enbloc and a closer inspection of their actions is warranted and certain behaviours ought not to be just frowned upon, but banned outright. There is a right way to go about your business and a wrong way. It's time to stop blaming the victim and go after the culprit.
.
Please take note that it was this very same agency that brokered the Finland Gardens sale which was rejected by the STB thus:-
.
"The board dismissed the application on the grounds that it found there was no 80 per cent majority and that the sale price was not obtained in good faith.’ (Straits Times)
"The board dismissed the application on the grounds that it found there was no 80 per cent majority and that the sale price was not obtained in good faith.’ (Straits Times)
.
To be fair, though, they did also broker Farrer Court - "Smooth Sailing"
.
"Among them is housewife Shirley Lee, in her 40s. She was full of praise for Credo Real Estate and law firm Rodyk & Davidson which handled the deal.She said: ‘Everything was so fast and smooth. Such a huge estate is not easy to handle. I’m very happy with the sale.‘They kept in close contact with the residents, gave frequent updates, and made us feel more secure, though it’s a lot of extra work for them.’ (Newpaper - 16 Dec 2007)
Mar 27, 2008
FINLAND GARDENS
The next minority STB win to be defended at the High Court will be:-
Finland Gardens' High Court appeal will be heard on the 21 April.
Lawyer for the majority (applicants) will be Michael Huang SC.
Dennis Tan for the minority (defendants).
.
Just to recap on this case:
Finland Gardens:
48 unit freehold development off Siglap Road
Land area: 98,309 sqft
Property Agent: Credo Real Estate
Sold: November 2006
Buyer: Sing Holding Ltd for $49.5 Million
.
Finland Gardens: Enbloc Sale dismissed : Weekend 01 December 2007 here
STB rejects Finland Gardens' Collective Sale: Straits Times 01 December 2007 here
.
Finland Gardens' High Court appeal will be heard on the 21 April.
Lawyer for the majority (applicants) will be Michael Huang SC.
Dennis Tan for the minority (defendants).
.
Just to recap on this case:
Finland Gardens:
48 unit freehold development off Siglap Road
Land area: 98,309 sqft
Property Agent: Credo Real Estate
Sold: November 2006
Buyer: Sing Holding Ltd for $49.5 Million
.
Finland Gardens: Enbloc Sale dismissed : Weekend 01 December 2007 here
STB rejects Finland Gardens' Collective Sale: Straits Times 01 December 2007 here
.
Mar 26, 2008
AIRVIEW TOWERS
HIGH COURT REJECTS AIRVIEW TOWER'S COLLECTIVE SALE Straits Times - 26 Mar 2008
.
They didn't have 80% - so NO SALE.
What is even more amazing is that the owner was unrepresented!
.
Justice Lee Seiu Kin, in his judgment dated March 19, said
.
"the 12-month timeline for the 80 per cent minimum requirement is a ’substantive’ condition put in place by the legislature to protect the legitimate rights of the minority."
.
The judge ruled that non-compliance with the timeline is not a mere technicality.
He said safeguards were built into the Land Titles (Strata) Act, allowing for the consideration of all objections of minority owners, and other factors.
He said safeguards were built into the Land Titles (Strata) Act, allowing for the consideration of all objections of minority owners, and other factors.
.
‘Timing is important because the longer the process is dragged out, the greater the likelihood that market conditions will change.’
.
En bloc details , Sold
.
.
********************************************************************
Previous post:-
Previous post:-
In late October last year, the STB threw out the collective sale application for Airview Towers at St Thomas Walk.
.
.
The sole, unrepresented minority owner brought his objections to the Board and the Board dismissed the application
.
"on the ground that the Applicants had not fulfilled these requisitions under Section 84A (1) (b) read with paragraph 1 (a) (i), in that the subsidiary proprietors of Airview Towers who could rightfully be counted as qualifying to make this application did not reach the requisite 80%."
.
Developer Bukit Sembawang Estates Ltd, which had agreed to pay $202.17 million to buy the site in April, said recently that the application had been dismissed on a technicality. They view this setback as a "hiccup" on their website.
The sellers are planning to file an appeal.
The sellers are planning to file an appeal.
14 Feb 2008 update
'In view of the uncertain climate in the property market, Bukit Sembawang said it is reviewing the launch of the two projects - the 102-unit freehold development Paterson Suites and the 123-unit The Vermont on Cairnhill. It is also waiting for the hearing of the appeal against the Strata Title Board's rejection on the collective sale of Airview Towers.Bukit Sembawang had planned to build a 36-storey condominium on the site currently occupied by Airview Towers and an adjacent property. But the Strata Titles Board had dismissed a collective sale application by the majority owners of Airview Towers on grounds of technicality. The hearing of the appeal is set to take place on Feb 19.'
.
High Court Appeal Feb 19
Mar 20, 2008
Enbloc and Good Neighbourliness
Three letters to the forum page of the Straits Times 20 March 2008 regarding enblocs:
"En-bloc sales eroding our 'sense of kampung"
"En-bloc sales eroding our 'sense of kampung"
"Right to hold property guaranteed by law"
Addressing the three letters in the forum page of the Straits Times, I find myself agreeing with the first two, in parts. The third , actually, I hold in reserve.
It is somewhat hyperbolic to say “enblocs erode our sense of kampung” when we all know that that original sense has long been absent in society. The early relocation exercises tried to keep communities together to maintain those nebulous ties but over the years, the old generation with their old ways gave way to the new generation with their vastly different lifestyles, education and expectations. A very big piece of kampung spirit rested on the shoulders of women and now those women have gone back into the workforce, children are kept indoors, and gates are locked (at least in the public housing sector). We all lament the loss of community spirit and some people at least try to address this problem by getting involved in community based projects. Unfortunately, they are a lot of work for very little return, but even that little return is better than none and so people soldier on. Community based projects work better when they are done on a small scale, for example a condominium can concentrate on the residents in the estate. And for Tampines Court, a community based group called the Tampines Court Neighbourhood Committee (NC) was established some time after privatization. The group comprises of 6 active members (all minority). Here is a list of some of the activities and events (since 2004) that this group of volunteers organized in their free time in order to foster good neighbourliness and community bonding.
Block Parties/Mini-bazaars/DeepaRaya Dinner/Christmas Parties/Gardening Talk /Calligraphy Contest/Egg Painting/Art Contests/FamilyDays/Magic shows/Balloon artists/Henna artists/Comedy Acts/Bingo/Tampines Court Idol/Lucky Draws/Sandwich Making Contest/Toddler races/Sushi making/Lantern festivals/Mooncake Making/ Lantern Decorating contest /Fiesta Nite at Riverview Hotel /Visit to the Lion’s Home for the Elders /Visit to the Jamiyah Home for the Aged /Visit to the Jamiyah Childrens’ Home /Trip to the Night Safari /Day trip to Ostrich farm, fireflies in Malaysia /and finally, their last effort was an Afternoon Tea & Chit Chat.
Tampines Court Neighbourhood Committee was voted the most active NC in Singapore in 2005.
So, what effect does en bloc have on the ongoing efforts of promoting community bonding within private estates? Good neighbourliness does not happen overnight, it takes familiarity and a fair length of time. Well, as evidenced in Tampines Court; it is decimated by it.
Addressing the three letters in the forum page of the Straits Times, I find myself agreeing with the first two, in parts. The third , actually, I hold in reserve.
It is somewhat hyperbolic to say “enblocs erode our sense of kampung” when we all know that that original sense has long been absent in society. The early relocation exercises tried to keep communities together to maintain those nebulous ties but over the years, the old generation with their old ways gave way to the new generation with their vastly different lifestyles, education and expectations. A very big piece of kampung spirit rested on the shoulders of women and now those women have gone back into the workforce, children are kept indoors, and gates are locked (at least in the public housing sector). We all lament the loss of community spirit and some people at least try to address this problem by getting involved in community based projects. Unfortunately, they are a lot of work for very little return, but even that little return is better than none and so people soldier on. Community based projects work better when they are done on a small scale, for example a condominium can concentrate on the residents in the estate. And for Tampines Court, a community based group called the Tampines Court Neighbourhood Committee (NC) was established some time after privatization. The group comprises of 6 active members (all minority). Here is a list of some of the activities and events (since 2004) that this group of volunteers organized in their free time in order to foster good neighbourliness and community bonding.Block Parties/Mini-bazaars/DeepaRaya Dinner/Christmas Parties/Gardening Talk /Calligraphy Contest/Egg Painting/Art Contests/FamilyDays/Magic shows/Balloon artists/Henna artists/Comedy Acts/Bingo/Tampines Court Idol/Lucky Draws/Sandwich Making Contest/Toddler races/Sushi making/Lantern festivals/Mooncake Making/ Lantern Decorating contest /Fiesta Nite at Riverview Hotel /Visit to the Lion’s Home for the Elders /Visit to the Jamiyah Home for the Aged /Visit to the Jamiyah Childrens’ Home /Trip to the Night Safari /Day trip to Ostrich farm, fireflies in Malaysia /and finally, their last effort was an Afternoon Tea & Chit Chat.
Tampines Court Neighbourhood Committee was voted the most active NC in Singapore in 2005.
So, what effect does en bloc have on the ongoing efforts of promoting community bonding within private estates? Good neighbourliness does not happen overnight, it takes familiarity and a fair length of time. Well, as evidenced in Tampines Court; it is decimated by it.
.
Enbloc splits small communities into pro and anti groups. The anti-group members generally have a stronger sense of community than the pro-group and it comes as no surprise that it is in this group that you will find a greater number of community-based volunteers. The active members of our NC are all minority.
Enbloc splits small communities into pro and anti groups. The anti-group members generally have a stronger sense of community than the pro-group and it comes as no surprise that it is in this group that you will find a greater number of community-based volunteers. The active members of our NC are all minority.
.
NC activities saw a sharp decline in attendance after enbloc was announced and the signing began. All along, the NC had had an amicable association with the Management Committee (MC). It was altogether a mutually beneficial arrangement. When the old MC was swept aside at the 2006 AGM, the new MC ,with their strong pro-enbloc agenda, took on a completely different stance. They challenged the very existence of the NC and for a time they were forced to hold their monthly meetings at a venue outside the estate. After the 're-education' of the MC as to the function and role of the NC, the group was eventually allowed to return to continue their resident activities. But things were not as before. The fledgling community spirit that once existed had died. Event planning petered out.
NC activities saw a sharp decline in attendance after enbloc was announced and the signing began. All along, the NC had had an amicable association with the Management Committee (MC). It was altogether a mutually beneficial arrangement. When the old MC was swept aside at the 2006 AGM, the new MC ,with their strong pro-enbloc agenda, took on a completely different stance. They challenged the very existence of the NC and for a time they were forced to hold their monthly meetings at a venue outside the estate. After the 're-education' of the MC as to the function and role of the NC, the group was eventually allowed to return to continue their resident activities. But things were not as before. The fledgling community spirit that once existed had died. Event planning petered out.
So, what will the NC do in 2008? Well, another visit to an old folks home has been arranged where they shall bring food, music, fun (and Bingo paraphernalia!) to people far more deserving of their efforts. But perhaps, just perhaps, there will be a final attempt at a Mother’s Day event in May.
.
The final letter was written by a lawyer who preferred to hone in on the legal and constitutional aspects to home ownership, but left it somewhat hanging in the air, unanswered. I believe the legal aspect was touched upon at the High Court by a minority owner of Lincolnsvale condominium, who claimed he had a 'fee simple title ' (that is, freehold) to his unit and that this was inviolable and therefore "should be immune against proceedings against their property". Justice Paul Tan gave his reasons why this was not so (85 to 90). High rise apartments are basically airspace, and the state "regulates property in thin air"(88). He talks about (89)" the law of property is not really about things but about people.." Owners have rights but with rights comes obligations etc. This is an oversimplification on my part, but read the decision if you can.
.
And the constitutional aspect?- well, that's not for me to argue.
.
*********************************************************************
TUESDAY, 25 MARCH
2 more letters today
"Be sensitive to each other": Straits Times 25 March
.
"It's our kampung, Mr Lau": Straits Times Online 25 March
"I am saddened by Mr Lau Chee Kian's dismissal of our community at Gillman Heights in his letter on Thursday, 'Sense of kampung in condos overstated'.I am from America and my wife, from Japan. Our two children are both born in Singapore. Gillman Heights is the only home they have known. It has been the best home I could imagine. Mr Lau has obviously never lived in Gillman Heights as I have or, if he has, he has kept himself behind closed doors and locked gate with his curtains drawn and chosen not to be a part of the wonderful community here. Our children run from one house to another, playing with friends. We regularly drop in on neighbours and strike up conversations as we pass each other in the common corridors.Our children have been looked after by all the uncles and aunties here. We and several other families attended the wedding of a daughter of Pak Pandan, formerly a cleaner here. We gossip every day with cheerful Auntie Lim and others at her 'Come Again Minimart' in the basement of our block. Every year, we have been invited by our Malay neighbours across from us to celebrate Hari Raya at their house. We are moving out at the end of March, forced out by the collective sale. We are saddened by this move and will miss our friends and neighbours very much. We hope we will be able to keep in touch, but that is far from the same thing as having neighbours whom one can count on daily for help, advice, and friendship.Singapore has been a great place to live in. Safety, convenience, superb green open spaces and many other things make it a great place to raise children. But it is hard to put down roots when they can be torn up so easily. Communities are living, organic things. They cannot be engineered by governments but need to be cultivated by societies. If Mr Lau's attitudes are predominant in Singapore, then I am sceptical of our chances of finding another place to grow a new community on this island. I hope I am wrong."
.
Eric Thompson
.
To the first letter: largely poppycock. After considering all sides to the argument over a period of 1 year (the length stipulated by LTSA rules) one must come down to the decision whether to sign the CSA or not. Not signing means you have not been persuaded by the majority viewpoint and have taken a stand against it. You may be perfectly cordial with your majority neighbours, and understanding to a degree - but to meekly acquiesce?
"En-bloc sales at least give you some compensation" and what about those that don't? What about those that give a bare buy price - a buy price that could be 10 to 15 years old and wholly inadequate for toady's market? It all depends from which end of the telescope you are looking through.
"though for the minority who oppose it, it is of no consequence." minority objections are far more complex than a single issue, and encompass a whole variety of personal considerations! Emotional, financial, practical and political.
For the minority to think in "positives rather than the negatives … and respect the views of the majority, rather than accuse them of wrongdoing" The government has given a legitimate avenue for minority concerns to be heard in the form of a STB tribunal. Whilst many may say this has become woefully insufficient as it never seems to be enough to prove their case there - it is all we have got at present. Quite simply, if you view the majority as having done wrong, you don't capitulate, not until matters have been investigated and your concerns addressed and satisfied.
For the majority to "be sensitive to the minority and explain your stand with love and understanding" Ok, I should await someone pushing enblocto come to my door with all the love and understanding he can muster. 'Peace man, I come to sell your home with false promises and without regard to your personal position. Let me show you my love by volunteering my time to undersell your property to the first buyer in the shortest possible time, without doing a valuation. You understand I am doing this in your best interests, I want to relieve you of your burden of having to finance your mortgage and instead make you downgrade where I am sure you will feel much happier." I promise I won't hit him with a frying pan.
"in times of ‘war’ you can at least make your stand as a friend and not as an enemy" . Enbloc wars can be fought in a civilized fashion, perhaps that is what the writer meant. But pretending you are your adversary's friend is hypocritical at best. There should always be room for dialogue - even on this blog I post all comments (save about a handful of distasteful ones), even though they always seem to go round and round in circles :)
BTW: Tampines Court is very peaceful post-en bloc; long may it last.
.
To the second letter:
" But it is hard to put down roots when they can be torn up so easily. Communities are living, organic things. They cannot be engineered by governments but need to be cultivated by societies. ". This echoes a previous post of mine about the shallowness of community if people are forced out on a 10 year cycle (see The Wait, November 07).
HORIZON TOWERS
Horizon Towers case back in High Court
THE seemingly never-ending saga of the Horizon Towers collective sale is clearly losing steam.
Two of the nine sets of minority owners fighting the sale have dropped out of the High Court appeal that started yesterday, and even the number of onlookers in the public gallery was noticeably fewer than at previous hearings.
The dropouts - a couple representing themselves and a foreign firm - were not represented in court yesterday.
Minority owners Jasmine Tan and Rudy Darmawan are representing themselves and three others while Mr Quek Keng Seng is representing himself. The other minority owners are represented by Harry Elias Partnership.
Senior Counsel Harry Elias told the court that the $500 million sale price was not obtained in good faith. He highlighted the fact that a higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings in Hong Kong was not communicated to the owners.
Mr K. Shanmugam and his team from Allen & Gledhill, who are representing the buyers, applied successfully to participate in the court session.
Minority owners are appealing a decision in December last year by the Strata Titles Board (STB) to approve the $500 million sale of the 99-year leasehold Leonie Hill estate.
The on-off again sale has reflected the roller-coaster ride Singapore’s property market has been on over the past two years or so.
The Horizon Towers deal was inked in January last year, before the market shot up. Hotel Properties , Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million.
But as the market boiled over last year, minority owners felt they were getting a raw deal and tried to halt the sale. They had some success when the STB rejected the sale on a technicality, but that ruling was overturned by the High Court in October. The STB approved the sale in December.
But the once-hot market has cooled considerably since then. Sale volumes have thinned out dramatically although prices have generally held up.
The minority owners are still fighting the sale as they never wanted to sell from Day One. And the sale price of less than $900 per sq ft is still below prevailing market rates, said an industry source.
The hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck continues today.
Straits Times - 20 Mar 2008
Two of the nine sets of minority owners fighting the sale have dropped out of the High Court appeal that started yesterday, and even the number of onlookers in the public gallery was noticeably fewer than at previous hearings.
The dropouts - a couple representing themselves and a foreign firm - were not represented in court yesterday.
Minority owners Jasmine Tan and Rudy Darmawan are representing themselves and three others while Mr Quek Keng Seng is representing himself. The other minority owners are represented by Harry Elias Partnership.
Senior Counsel Harry Elias told the court that the $500 million sale price was not obtained in good faith. He highlighted the fact that a higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings in Hong Kong was not communicated to the owners.
Mr K. Shanmugam and his team from Allen & Gledhill, who are representing the buyers, applied successfully to participate in the court session.
Minority owners are appealing a decision in December last year by the Strata Titles Board (STB) to approve the $500 million sale of the 99-year leasehold Leonie Hill estate.
The on-off again sale has reflected the roller-coaster ride Singapore’s property market has been on over the past two years or so.
The Horizon Towers deal was inked in January last year, before the market shot up. Hotel Properties , Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million.
But as the market boiled over last year, minority owners felt they were getting a raw deal and tried to halt the sale. They had some success when the STB rejected the sale on a technicality, but that ruling was overturned by the High Court in October. The STB approved the sale in December.
But the once-hot market has cooled considerably since then. Sale volumes have thinned out dramatically although prices have generally held up.
The minority owners are still fighting the sale as they never wanted to sell from Day One. And the sale price of less than $900 per sq ft is still below prevailing market rates, said an industry source.
The hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck continues today.
Straits Times - 20 Mar 2008
:-
High Court appeal to set aside the order of the STB
Wednesday 19 March and Thursday 20 March
Court 4B at 10.00 am
.
The Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck to preside.
Wednesday 19 March and Thursday 20 March
Court 4B at 10.00 am
.
The Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck to preside.
.
lawyers for some minority owners:
(MICHAEL HWANG) (MICHAEL HWANG SC) (HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP) (CHIA TZE YUNG JUSTIN)
lawyers for some minority owners:
(MICHAEL HWANG) (MICHAEL HWANG SC) (HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP) (CHIA TZE YUNG JUSTIN)
Other minority representing themselves
Vs
Vs
Majority/Buyers:
(TAN RAJAH & CHEAH) (ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP) (K SHANMUGAM SC)
(ANG CHENG HOCK)
(TAN RAJAH & CHEAH) (ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP) (K SHANMUGAM SC)
(ANG CHENG HOCK)
Today Online 20 March 2008
.
"Horizon minorities say sale was done in bad faith"
Business Times article 20 March 2008
.
High Court Written Decision 17 July 2008
Right call made
Today - 21 July
.
Time to relook en bloc rules
Weekend Today - 19 July 2008
.
Another door closes on Horizon Minorities
.
High Court Written Decision 17 July 2008
Lo Pui Sang and Others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and Others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and Other Appeals
[2008] SGHC 116
.[2008] SGHC 116
Right call made
Today - 21 July
.
Time to relook en bloc rules
Weekend Today - 19 July 2008
.
Another door closes on Horizon Minorities
High Court dismisses appeal, says there’s no proof that sale was in bad faith
Minority owners seeking to stop the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers have been defeated yet again. Singapore’s High Court yesterday dismissed their appeal, on the grounds that they failed to prove the sale was done in bad faith and prejudiced their rights.
This decision, coming on the heels of the High Court’s dismissal of an appeal against the sale of Gillman Heights Condominium, marks the second major defeat for minorities here.
The minority owners of Horizon Towers whom BT spoke to said they were still considering their options at this time. But they will soon be meeting to decide if they will take the matter to the Court of Appeal, or start a civil suit to claim for any financial loss - which will be their final recourse.
If they decide not to appeal further, the $500 million sale of the Leonie Hill development to a consortium led by Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) will go through. It will also mean that the closely watched saga - which has been playing out in the public eye for more than a year - will finally come to a close.
HPL group executive director Chris Lim told BT: ‘We are pleased with the High Court judgment and hope to move forward with the deal as it’s been one-and-a-half years since the sale agreement was inked.’
Justice Choo Han Teck, who presided over the minorities’ appeal, said in his judgment yesterday that the minorities had failed to show that the Strata Titles Board (STB) erred in law in its decision to approve the en bloc sale in December.
The High Court only has powers to consider questions of law on appeal.
The minorities had argued that the sale had been conducted in bad faith. They claimed a better sale price might have been achieved if the sales committee had pursued a second offer from a party called Vineyard, which had reportedly offered $510 million. The minorities claimed the sales committee did not pursue the offer - and even concealed it - because the development’s sales agent, First Tree, was getting a higher sales commission from the HPL consortium.
But Justice Choo said the minorities failed to prove bad faith, as their argument was essentially concerned with whether the eventual sale price was fair - which is ‘a question of fact’ for the STB to decide, and not a question of law for the court to deliberate on.Justice Choo said, if the minorities feel the sales committee had deliberately or negligently not pursued the Vineyard offer, they can pursue a civil claim for the purported financial loss.
He also ruled that the minorities had failed to prove there was a lack of good faith in the way the sales proceeds were to be distributed amongst the various owners. The minorities argued the apportionment method used was unfair because it resulted in penthouse owners getting about 16 per cent less on a per- square-metre basis, compared to non-penthouse owners.
Justice Choo said there can’t be a lack of good faith in the selection of the apportionment method just because it was the only one considered or it led to some owners getting more than others. He noted that the STB had considered the evidence of several experts and it seemed no one method would satisfy everyone.
He added that, even if the STB had deemed the chosen method inappropriate, it would be an error of fact and not an error of law.
He also dismissed the minorities’ arguments that the en bloc sale was unconstitutional, and that the sale agreement had lapsed by the time the STB approved the sale.
Justice Choo also noted the ‘intrigue’ that has surrounded the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers. There have been numerous accusations on the conduct of the various parties involved - ranging from whether the sales committee should have worked harder to get a better sale price, to whether the minorities were only against the sale because the price was too low.‘
The STB was not bound to examine the rights and preferences of each individual subsidiary proprietor and it was not the forum to inquire into the conduct of individual members of the SC (sales committee), or even the SC as a whole,’ Justice Choo said. ‘If the STB were to embark on the kind of inquiry and make the findings the appellants say it ought to have done, the STB would never get its job done within the time limited.’
Business Times - 19 July 2008.
Mar 18, 2008
Mar 13, 2008
Gillman Heights going to Court of Appeal
Gillman Heights High Court appeal against the decision of the STB will be heard on:
Thursday 13 March 2008 at 10.00am, Court 6C
Friday 14 March 2008 at 10.00am
Tuesday 18 March 2008 at 10.30am
before the Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck. The lawyer for the 22 minority are (MICHAEL HWANG SC(INSTRUCTED))(RICHARD TAN)(STRAITS LAW PRACTICE)
.
The 8 Gillman majority who are questioning their legal standing with regard to their not having signed the supplemental CSA will also be heard. Lawyer(s) for these appealing majority are (Lim & Bangras)(Lim Hong Kan)
.
Straits Times article 14 March here
You gotta love these people!
.
New Twist to Saga
Today Online article 17 March .
ChanneNews Asia 17 March 2008
No conflict of interest in property deal
Straits Times - 2 Apr 2008 here
.
March 18, GH hearing concluded.
Judgement is reserved.
Mar 3, 2008
Bees to honey
Banks courting cash-rich Farrer Court-ersSunday Times -2 Mar 2008
Talks held at Farrer Court to promote financial services to residents after estate’s $1.34 billion collective sale
WHERE there is money, businesses will pursue it. So it is not surprising that at least two financial players, Citibank and IPP Financial Advisers, have held talks at Farrer Court to woo residents with their services.
CITIBANK STAFF posted in the void decks of Farrer Court blocks invited residents to finance-related talks after the estate was bought by developer CapitaLand. At the talk, the Citibank officers spoke about financial management services for affluent customers. IPP Financial Advisers also held a talk there. — ST PHOTO: WANG HUI FEN
Residents netted $2.15 million on average after the estate had a collective sale in June last year. The 618-unit estate in Farrer Road was bought by developer CapitaLand for a record $1.34 billion. The original owners paid a little over $100,000 for their units 31 years ago.
The wooing of the Farrer Court community began four months ago with the unusual sight of Citibank officers posted in the void decks. They invited residents to two finance-related talks, complete with a free buffet dinner, in the estate’s function room.
When The Sunday Times attended one talk last Wednesday evening, we saw bank staff handing out booklets to more than 150 residents. The staff spoke about financial management and Citigold services targeting more affluent customers.
Citibank said such talks were held on an ongoing basis in private residences, including The Berth by The Cove in Sentosa Cove in January.
Many residents liked what they saw. As Mr Aeden Tang, 49, a bank officer, said: ‘Other banks didn’t take the trouble to reach out to us, unlike Citibank.’
Another resident, a 56-year-old retiree who wanted to be known only as Madam Tan, agreed: ‘It’s a win-win situation because many residents are old and can’t shop around for a good bank.’
Independent financial adviser IPP also held a talk there yesterday which drew about 25 people.
Residents said Citibank’s more aggressive tactics worked better than IPP’s. The latter had put up a banner to advertise its talk.
Other banks such as Standard Chartered have also reached out to those living in private residences.
None of them or IPP wanted to reveal how much business the talks had generated. OCBC, however, stopped such roadshows two years ago as it felt that they encroached on residents’ privacy.
Source : Sunday Times – 2 Mar 2008
Talks held at Farrer Court to promote financial services to residents after estate’s $1.34 billion collective sale
WHERE there is money, businesses will pursue it. So it is not surprising that at least two financial players, Citibank and IPP Financial Advisers, have held talks at Farrer Court to woo residents with their services.
CITIBANK STAFF posted in the void decks of Farrer Court blocks invited residents to finance-related talks after the estate was bought by developer CapitaLand. At the talk, the Citibank officers spoke about financial management services for affluent customers. IPP Financial Advisers also held a talk there. — ST PHOTO: WANG HUI FEN
Residents netted $2.15 million on average after the estate had a collective sale in June last year. The 618-unit estate in Farrer Road was bought by developer CapitaLand for a record $1.34 billion. The original owners paid a little over $100,000 for their units 31 years ago.
The wooing of the Farrer Court community began four months ago with the unusual sight of Citibank officers posted in the void decks. They invited residents to two finance-related talks, complete with a free buffet dinner, in the estate’s function room.
When The Sunday Times attended one talk last Wednesday evening, we saw bank staff handing out booklets to more than 150 residents. The staff spoke about financial management and Citigold services targeting more affluent customers.
Citibank said such talks were held on an ongoing basis in private residences, including The Berth by The Cove in Sentosa Cove in January.
Many residents liked what they saw. As Mr Aeden Tang, 49, a bank officer, said: ‘Other banks didn’t take the trouble to reach out to us, unlike Citibank.’
Another resident, a 56-year-old retiree who wanted to be known only as Madam Tan, agreed: ‘It’s a win-win situation because many residents are old and can’t shop around for a good bank.’
Independent financial adviser IPP also held a talk there yesterday which drew about 25 people.
Residents said Citibank’s more aggressive tactics worked better than IPP’s. The latter had put up a banner to advertise its talk.
Other banks such as Standard Chartered have also reached out to those living in private residences.
None of them or IPP wanted to reveal how much business the talks had generated. OCBC, however, stopped such roadshows two years ago as it felt that they encroached on residents’ privacy.
Source : Sunday Times – 2 Mar 2008
I doubt if the banks will be setting up shop in Tampines Court's void decks. If they do, it will be for the purpose of offering bank loans to cash-strapped residents!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)