Application to STB

Florence Regency Tender Results

7 October 2017

Standoff in Florence Regency en bloc sale amid risk of oversupply in area

6 October 2017

The 3 bidders in the Florence Regency tender have declined to raise their bids or reconsider their terms and conditions. So now the CSC are skipping to scenario 3: look for any buyer willing to sign within the 10 week private treaty window. Good luck there - the bid has to be at least $629m to match the LTSA mandated valuation.

Failing that they will go for Scenario 4; a new tender in Jan 2018 and a new LTSA mandated Valuation at close of tender. 
They have 1 year to make an application for sale to the STB from date of 80% - so enough time for at least one more roll of the dice.

Either way, I think they are toast.


29 SEPTEMBER 2017

No witnesses were allowed at the opening of the tender box

So, this is a case of the Valuation being higher than the RP & all the Bids.  This is a good thing for FR. The Valuation protected them from selling below value and the bidders will have to increase their bids or some other shenanigans will come into play.  They have 10 weeks to play around with this 

And before the comments come in about the 'market setting the value'. that is patently not true. There are High Court decisions which say that the market does not set the value. The Gov does not sell it's GLS sites if the bids are too low and below their valuation.

Hang in there,  FR.

There are a few possible scenarios open to FR, in my humble opinion:

First Scenario

The SC go back to the bidders and ask them to top up their bid to the Valuation. If the difference is not too great then perhaps one will oblige. The sale can be proceed as it does not run counter to the CSA and would be above the RP. 

Second Scenario

None of the bidders agree to top up their bids and the SC then take the Supplemental Agreement route. Since the CSA states that there can be no sale below the official valuation they will have to come out with a new CSA and find a fresh 80% who agree to sell below the valuation. 

This would be an improvident decision; the route of death. The 80% majority can sign for any RP they like but they cannot contract out their obligation to the minority not to undersell the property. The valuation at point of tender is there to prevent such an outcome. 

If. say, the new 80% majority agree to undersell the property then the minority will make an objection to the STB.  I believe the buyer can, with SC permission, agree to top up the difference in exchange for the withdrawal of their objections.  This will probably be cheaper than topping up the difference for the full 100% of owners.
Alternatively, the 80% can agree to compensate the objecting minority from their own pockets.

If the buyer or majority do not wish to top up and proceed with the sale regardless, then the minority will go to High Court. In my opinion, they have a rock solid case for the sale to be thrown out at that juncture. The sale would not be done in good faith with regard to sale price.

The LTSA valuation was set at close of tender as a safety net primarily for the minority.  It is bad enough that one's home is appropriated by one's neighbours, but thankfully, the Law does protect against an undersell.

Third Scenario
A sale with any interested party through a private treaty as long as the Valuation price is met to avoid minority issues. The have 10 weeks to enter into a private treaty from close of this Tender 1 (LTSA Second Schedule 11.-(3))


Fouth Scenario
Hold another tender and/or get another independent valuation? 

Fifth Scenario
One should never underestimate the ingenuity of lawyers and marketing agents to circumvent or twist rules to their advantage. We shall see if any new permutation is born.

Valuation Report for dumb sheep

The registered bundle contained the official valuation report done at close of tender. (TAB 5)

Once again we have been served with a worthless document high on words and devoid of any actual computation or 

We still do not know on what basis the RP  - or even this particular valuation - was derived. There are no calculations, no information on which sites it based it's comparison method of valuation. This Valuer didn't even include such basic information such as plot ratio. It gives the Total Strata Area as if it were important. The Total Strata Area (the 560 unit area) is not part of  any calculation determining the RP. It is only used when determining the sales proceeds/unit.

Indeed, I queried the MA* (see update below) at the second session of the 2nd SP Meeting whether the Valuer used an existing plot ratio of 1.71 or 1.55 (as shown on the MA's price analysis slide) and he couldn't give me an answer.  Did he not think to ask? Did he not want to tell? Well, this valuation doesn't give an answer either.

So, if the valuer used the estimated existing plot ratio of 1.55, doesn't it follow that this valuation is also just an estimate?
If so, then what is the true valuation when the correct development baseline is used?
How are we to know whether the correct or estimated existing plot ratio was used in this report?

" For the purpose of this report, the Direct Comparison Approach is adopted to determine the open market value with the Residual Approach as cross-check'

Properties considered in it's direct Comparison Approach: NONE LISTED
Residual Approach crosscheck: NONE GIVEN

Was our SC sleeping at the wheel again or did they even think to ask for the RLV. Shame on them for delivering us such an insubstantial report. In this day and age of informed owners - we deserve better.  This report should have been thrown back in their faces. 

This 'independent' Valuation was the last chance to see how TC was valued, and it failed miserably. The majority are happy with an unsupported RP and the sales proceeds from the sale.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - the sale is unstoppable regardless of all the mis-steps, bloopers, stonewalling and non-transparency. In the end it is typical of most collective sales with only a tiny minority of people who actually care about the details.

Alas, the residual land valuation should not have been a detail hidden from owners since day 1. It is the cornerstone of a collective sale.  The reason why it was such a guarded secret, never to be revealed, was because we 'simple' owners would then become 'informed'. Marketing agents do not like informed owners, it makes their job so much more difficult.

UPDATE 
Looking at the STB website and the Form 21 for Application for the purpose of a Collective Sale:-

So, the MA has to furnish supporting evidence and details on CALCULATION .. in other words the Valuers RLV...... to the STB. So how could he claim ignorance of the baseline plot ratio used?  He must be in possession of the full calculation if he is to make a proper application for sale at the STB. 

How could he have stood there and tell me he didn't know?

Braddell View

Oct 2017

Sep 2017

Notice of Sale in newspapers

Notice of proposed Application of Sale in newspapers dated 18 Sep 2017

Braddel View Enbloc

Braddel View to join the collective sale scrummage

Just Waiting

There's nothing to do but wait for :

1) the advertisement* of the particulars of the sale in the local papers followed by
* 4 daily newspapers on Mon 18 Sept, 2017

2) the  notice of the collective sale (a large bundle of documents) sent to each owner by registered post. These will include the CSA, S&P, Valuation Report among other things

3) minority objectors have 21 days from date of notice for collective sale to make an objection at the STB.

4) the Application* for sale to The STB within 14 days of the newspaper advertisement.
* 22 Sept 2017

5) wait 60 days or less for the STB Approval or Stop Order from date of first mediation

6) wait 3 months from XXXXXXXX (we have been given the runaround on this)  for completion of sale and money in your bank

7) stay for 6 months if necessary to prepare to move out.

CAVEATS
A comment below said they he/she had received a letter from the SLA informing them that a caveat had been lodged against their unit.

What is a caveat?
A caveat is a legal document lodged with SLA by a purchaser to protect his/her interests after an option to purchase is exercised or a Sales & Purchase Agreement is signed

This is normal practice as the buyer has a caveat-able interest in the majority units. The buyer should not, however, lodge caveats against the Minority units until such time as the STB approves the sale.

Note:   As of Thurs 8 Mar 2018, no caveat has been lodged on my unit. The CSC has sent in a Notice of collective sale and that is reflected in MyProperty details - but the Buyer has not lodged a caveat on my minority unit to date.

Pines Grove 4th/3rd? Enbloc Attempt

Straits Times 14 Sep 2017

STB or High Court for '0.25% or $2000, which ever is higher'?

NO RENOVATION COSTS FOR OBJECTORS AT STB

 The confusion lies in the subtle difference in the 2007 & 2010 LTSA Amendments