A Minority Owner's chronicled journey through 3 Collective Sale attempts; the last one being successful. TC was a 560 ex-HUDC estate with a thriving community spirit (up until the enblocs that is). I have moved on to a new, 37 unit Freehold estate. Life is quiet now with zero community feeling.
Tampines Court 1985-2018
Jun 28, 2008
Jun 26, 2008
Just Articles
Sunday Times-27 April 2007
.
What if my condo's enbloc sale fails?
Sunday Times -27 April 2008
.
Mandarin Gardens management steps down over en bloc disputes
ChannelnewsAsia - 2 May 2008
.
Enbloc upraor at Bayshore Park. Mandarin Gardens
Straits Times - 5 May 2008
.
Enbloc system needs relook, as Bayshore shows
Straits Times - 5 May 2008
.
Mandarin Gardens En Bloc Sale
Straits Times - 09 May 2008
.
Regent Gardens owners file appeal despite sale completion
Straits Times - 17 May 2008
.
En Bloc woes at Toh Tuck Road
.
Proxy votes in Mandarin Gardens
Straits Times - 19 May 2008
.
En Bloc sales bring out the worst in Singaporeans
Straits Times - 01 June 2008
.
Developers turn landlords as property market stays quiet
Straits Times - 04 June 2008
.
Prices of some new properties coming down
Straits Times - 12 June 2008
.
HDB upgraders hold key to property market turnaround
Business Times - 12 June 2008
.
En Bloc blues? There's hope , says support group
Straits Times - 12 June 2008
Jun 25, 2008
Gillman Heoghts High Court Decision
Straits Times - 26 June 2008
Gillman Heights en bloc sale to move ahead following Court's ruling
ChannelNewsAsia - 26 June 2008
Gillman en bloc sale to proceed
Business Times - 26 June 2008.
High Court decision.( free to view for 3 month:
Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters[2008] SGHC 97
25 June 2008
Honorable Choo Han Teck J
.
on TOP/CSC:.
"15. The relevant parliamentary debates show that parliament had intended to peg the requisite majority consent needed for the collective sale (80% or 90%) with the age of the estate/development"
"17. The words "TOP" or "CSC" were not mentioned at all during the second and third reading of the 1998 Bill by the Minister or any Member of Parliament. I am of the opinion that the references to TOP or CSC in s 84A(!) by the draftsman were merely used as a method of calculating the age of the development."
Financial Benefits of en-bloc for TC
2002 high-end public housing (HUDC)
2003 privatisation at $19,666 (strata title)
2004 a fence, 2 guardhouses and sleeping security guards
2005 en-bloc rumblings
2006 signature collection
2007 en bloc sale
2008 en bloc fight
2009 low to mid-tier public housing, substantial bank interest loss, substantial CPF loss, no cash for next home.
All this has a filter down, disruptive effect on:
retirement plans
investment plans
childrens’ education plans
$576,257 is owed to the MCST for privatization balance. But some of these owners who did not pay up on time like the rest of us, need not worry – they will have their debts paid by the diligent folk whose agreement was never sought. Not only that, if they have also chalked up huge interest penalties, that too will be paid on their behalf. So, on hindsight, it would have been better NOT to pay privatization costs promptly.
Private Apartment –--> en bloc –--> public housing
Don’t pay you bills –--> more money from en bloc
Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of en-bloc, Tampines Court style.
Jun 11, 2008
Another call for 1-for 1 exchange
SINGAPORE’S Private Property Market Index looks like a mutant three-hump camel, registering a 45 per cent bust from the second quarter of 1996, a 40 per cent boom from the fourth quarter of 1998, a 20 per cent bust from the second quarter of 2000 and a 58 per cent rise from the first quarter of 2004, with the latest figures in the second quarter of this year dropping back to below the second hump.
Jun 4, 2008
Developers turn landlords
They are leasing out apartments they bought to existing occupants as a way to generate some income instead of simply leaving them vacant.
Frasers Centrepoint said it may offer short-term leases to the former owners of the 185-unit Flamingo Valley, a freehold site in Siglap Road that it bought for $194 million in February last year.
‘We had 50 owners who wrote to ask us to extend their lease…They haven’t found anything suitable,’ said the firm’s general manager of development and property, Mr Cheang Kok Kheong.
He said the firm was likely to extend a lease of six months to a year. This would ‘give us more time to think about our plans’."
Straits Times - 04 June 2008
May 25, 2008
Tampines the "Shenton Way of the East"
Tampines to be the "Shenton Way of the East"
Making of a lively, livable global city
Straits Times - 24 May 2008
"Another theme that runs clearly through the 2008 masterplan is the decentralisation of urban activity to commercial nodes outside the Central Business District.
It is a strategy that first made an appearance in the URA's 1991 concept plan, with the Tampines regional centre identified as the first decentralised commercial hub.
Today Tampines is dubbed "the Shenton Way of the East" with many banks having set up backroom operations there."
.
Both Tampines and Novena are now bustling commercial centres, with a mix of offices, retail and entertainment facilities that cater to the needs of residents in the eastern part of Singapore.
May 18, 2008
Property Sector Review
Vacant real(i)ty
Source - Credit Suisse
May 5, 2008
En bloc uproar at Bayshore Park, Mandarin Gardens
| |||||||
| En bloc uproar at Bayshore Park, Mandarin Gardens | |||||||
| | |||||||
| THE market for en bloc sales may have gone dead quiet, but the issue is still raising a ruckus at two of Singapore's most iconic condominium developments in the East. Sales committees pushing for the collective sales of Mandarin Gardens and Bayshore Park have been accused of trying to control the management councils running these estates and voting down proposals to upgrade estate facilities. The committees, made up of residents who are pro-en bloc, have denied the charges. Still, things came to a head last Sunday at both condos' respective annual general meetings (AGM), which lasted up to 10 hours each. Sales committees are ad hoc committees formed by residents to explore the potential of an en bloc sale. They are different from the management council, which is appointed at the AGM by residents to run the estate and look into the upgrading of facilities. Residents against en bloc sales at both condos claim that the sales committees had gone round collecting proxy votes from residents so as to control the outcome of the AGMs. Mandarin Gardens' emotional AGM has left the 25-year-old estate with no management council at all. The existing council quit and refused to be re-elected because of some resolutions passed at the AGM. At the centre of the dispute was a controversial proposal by the sales committee, which was formed last year, to reduce the management council's current limit of $300,000 for expenses on urgent matters to $50,000. This was successful as the sales committee had enough proxy votes to form the majority. Council chairman Neoh Chin Chee said in a letter to residents last week that the resolutions passed made it 'untenable or difficult to carry on as a council member'. Proposals to upgrade the condo's rainshields and swimming pool tiles were also not approved. The AGM was eventually adjourned when not enough candidates were nominated. One resident Jeannette Aruldoss, 44, a lawyer, told The Straits Times that the $50,000 limit restricted the role of the council to run the estate. In emergencies, this fund may not be enough to address safety issues, she said. But sales committee chairman Mr Tan Kok Khoon said some residents had felt the $300,000 limit was too high. Over at the 21-year-old Bayshore Park estate, the sales committee proposed and pushed through a resolution to reduce the council members from 14 to nine. Of the nine, four are also on the sales committee, so some residents are upset about the change. Bayshore resident Mr S.K. Cheah, 40, a sales director, feels there could be a conflict of interest since sales committee members are likely to act in the interest of a sale, above that of the estate. He noted that at the AGM, some resolutions for maintenance and upgrading were also voted down. Another Bayshore Park resident, who declined to be named, commented that one common tactic used by many sales committees is to 'run the estate down' or keep maintenance to a minimum, so residents have little choice but to vote for a sale later. But Bayshore's sales committee member Alan Chua told The Straits Times that they had no intention of doing that. 'We've lived here for many years and love this place, why would we do that?' he said. On the en bloc sale potential, Savills Singapore director (marketing and business development) Ku Swee Yong noted that at least $2 billion each would be needed to buy each estate - a tall order even when the market is good. 'With the current market, the sale is impossible,' he said. This article was first published in The Straits Times on May 5, 2008 | |||||||
May 1, 2008
AIRVIEW TOWERS - black day for minorities
Airview Towers lone minority owner lost at the Court of Appeal.He was ordered to pay costs at the three levels; STB, High Court and Appeal Court.
Ruling Overturned
Straits Times - 25 April 2008
.
Majority Owners at Airview Towers win appeal
Business Times- 25 April
.
For His daughters, he fought an en bloc battle alone
Weekend Today- 26 April 2008
.
After a very lengthy conversation with a learned friend on this issue, I have come to a different level of understanding and retract my earlier statements on Airview Towers on the matter of costs. As an outsider not armed with all the facts and as a layperson not conversant in legal matters - it was an easy conclusion to jump to. Easy but wrong.
.
Apr 29, 2008
Missing PA letter
Botanic Garden View has the same problem - see their latest blog post.
*********************************************************
April 30
One of the comments below said: - "Enbloc sale affects all owners. Hence, they have the right to be kept updated regardless of their affiliation."
Another asks:- "any obligation on the sales agent part?"
Believe me, if it were mandatory to inform every owner about every little thing that happens, then you can be sure every owner in Tampines Court would have received double copies!
Let's look back at Lincolnsvale Condominium, a couple there claimed they were not informed of the sale.
Condo sold en bloc, but family won't move out - Straits Times 20 April 2007
Gans may be hauled to court for staying put Today - 24 April 2007
Well, the Gans were taken to court by the developer and I have dug out the Lincolnsvale High Court decision, 25 May 2007 to see what Justice Paul Tan had to say. The respondents' case raised inter alia 9 points to claim that the process of the sale was defective. Point (v) read:
"(v) They (ie. the respondents) were not fully informed, if at all, about the sale of Lincolnsvale until everything had been signed. Notices should have been sent to their Post Office Box address rather than any other address since they were constantly moving between apartments."
Justice Paul Tan wrote:
"69 ....First, when an en bloc sale is initially proposed, the LTSA does not make it compulsory for each subsidiary proprietor to be personally informed. While personal notice is eventually required, there is nothing mandating a sale committee (so long as it is able to garner the requisite shareholding) to publicise the sale to each and every subsidiary proprietor personally, save that a notice of who has assented to the collective sale agreement must be affixed in a conspicuous part of each of each building in the development every eight weeks (para 1(b) of the Schedule to the LTSA).............
70 The short point is this: as long as the sale committee (who may be composed of anyone) has been able to amass the requisite majority, it is under no obligation to bring the sale to the individual attention of all the subsidiary proprietors. Of course, in practice, it would be difficult to get a majority without some active publicity. But that may still leave a significant minority of owners whom, for instance, may not actually reside in their units on a daily basis, completely out of the loop."
So, there you have it. Your personal code of ethics might not be in alignment with the current law, but it's the Law that must be applied - and it's not unlawful to keep even a significant number of people out of the loop.
Apr 27, 2008
The aftereffects of a failed enbloc
Business Times - 15 April 2008
.
What if my condos's en bloc sale fails?
Some owners of condominium units may still be keen on selling en bloc, but developers’ interest in collective sale sites has more or less dried up.
No residential sites have been sold en bloc in recent months. And given the market uncertainty these days, completion may not be a given for sites that have been sold.
Several collective sales have fallen through, with a few – Tulip Garden, Makeway View, Finland Gardens and Pender Court – already axed, regardless of whether approval from the Strata Titles Board (STB) was obtained.
A collective sale requires an 80 per cent minimum consent from owners before it can be sold. Unless there is unanimous consent, owners will have to get an order from the STB for the sale after they find a buyer.
After getting the order, they will have to wait for the buyer to complete the sale, which is when they will get their sale proceeds.
They have six months after the sale completion date to move out of the property.
The Sunday Times takes a look at what happens if your collective sale deal falls through.
If the STB throws out your sale
The onus is on the majority owners – those who have signed off on the sale – to obtain the STB order.
‘If they do their part and get the STB order, they are not in breach of contract,’ said Credo Real Estate’s managing director, Mr Karamjit Singh.
If they cannot get the STB order, they have failed to fulfil their part of the sale agreement with the buyer. The buyer can thus take back his 5 per cent deposit, a sum he had to pay when he inked the deal.
Most sale and purchase agreements have a standard provision that stipulates that if the purchase fails to be completed, the deposit or option money will be forfeited.
The buyer can also ask the majority owners to appeal against the STB decision in the High Court, said Mr Singh.
If they are not satisfied with the High Court decision, they can proceed to the next and last level, the Court of Appeal.
This is where the Airview Towers case went. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision to reject the sale, putting the case back in the STB’s court.
In another collective sale, that of Finland Gardens, the buyer and sellers decided to withdraw their case in the High Court and terminate their agreement.
But as the sale had been thrown out by the STB, the developer remained entitled to keep its deposit.
It was a unique situation, and both sides negotiated on the terms, with the developer agreeing to bear most of the costs such as the litigator’s fees and advertisement costs.
If the buyer defaults on the deal
Whether owners can or cannot get back some money depends on which party is the one which has not fulfilled the contract.
Last year, developers were frantically buying sites and pushing to complete them.
But as the market slowed this year, it has so far seen a buyer, Bravo Building Construction, let go of three collective sale deals – Tulip Garden, Makeway View and Pender Court.
As it was the buyer that did not fulfil its part of the agreement to buy Tulip Garden for $516 million, it had to forfeit its 5 per cent deposit of $25.8 million.
The same developer also did not go ahead with the purchase of Makeway View and had to forfeit its option deposit of 1 per cent.
Owners from the 48-unit Pender Court got to keep the buyer’s 10 per cent deposit of $8 million, as well as a $4 million payment for granting a deadline extension. They had negotiated for an additional payment of $4 million to extend the deadline as the buyer had missed the completion deadline.
‘If the buyers default, sellers can sue them if the sale and purchase agreement does not contain a clause that limits the buyer’s liability to forfeiture of the deposit,’ said Mr Henry Heng, a director from law firm Tan Peng Chin LLC.
Or they could sell to another buyer and then go after the original buyer for the losses incurred, if any, again provided the agreement does not have the above clause.
While going after the buyer may sound logical to some, it depends on whether the company has enough funds to pay up, property consultants said.
Few would consider it as developers usually create shell companies for their property purchases, said DTZ executive director, consulting & research, Mrs Ong Choon Fah.
If you have committed to a property purchase
Last year, many owners bought replacement properties way before their collective sales were completed, in an attempt to beat the rising market.
This can get tricky. If the collective sale fails, the owners are basically left to their own devices. The risk is certainly much greater if the owners are dependent on the sale proceeds to finance their new property.
‘It’s a commercial risk, which is why property consultants and lawyers always advise owners not to take the risk,’ said Mr Singh.
All collective sellers have a six-month rent-free period after the completion of their collective sales, during which they can safely source for a property.
While it is uncommon, an owner could try to negotiate a deal with the seller of the new property where it becomes a done deal only if his estate’s collective sale is completed, said Mr Singh. The other party may agree if he is offered a higher price, he said.
DEALS EASING OFF
The market slowdown has resulted in one buyer, Bravo, giving up three collective sale deals – Tulip Garden, Makeway View and Pender Court.
- In the case of Tulip Garden, Bravo had to forfeit its 5 per cent deposit of $25.8 million.
- It also did not go ahead with the purchase of Makeway View and had to forfeit its option deposit of 1 per cent.
- Owners from the 48-unit Pender Court got to keep the buyer’s 10 per cent deposit of $8 million, as well as a $4 million payment for granting a deadline extension.
Goodbye, en bloc sales
Sunday Times - 27 April 2008
He's glad the 2 year saga is finally over
Mr Micky Sim was overseas when he first heard that his estate, Finland Gardens, was going to be sold en bloc two years ago.
The first thing he did was to call his contractor who was renovating the unit he had recently bought there.
‘I cut back by at least 30 per cent. Forget about partitions. And we made things movable, rather than fixed,’ said Mr Sim, 38.
He bought the apartment before the deal was announced.
Two years on, he can finally go ahead and finish the renovations.
As one of the minority owners who contested the sale of Finland Gardens, he is delighted that the estate will no longer be sold.
But he feels that most of the majority owners will not be unhappy either, as the deal was made before the upswing in the property market last year.
Mr Sim, who works as a director in a shipping company, thinks that even if the owners sell the apartments themselves, they can do better than the $504 per square foot price offered by the en bloc buyer – even though the market has since been cooling.
Still, he is happy to stay put at his home and will sell only if the price is right.
The two-year saga has hurt the spirit of the community somewhat, he conceded.
But he feels that most neighbours are still on good terms.
“It’s time for everyone to move on. Let bygones be bygones,” he added.
Sunday Times - 27 April 2008
Couple's dream turns to nightmare
Sunday Times - 27 April 2008
.
Worried about spiralling home prices when talk of a collective sale started last year, she liquidated all her stocks in August to help pay for a $3 million apartment near Holland Road.
‘Prices in the area were going up by $200,000 every month. I got scared,’ Jane, 58, told The Sunday Times.
But selling her stocks was the right move – she cashed out before the stock market took a hit late last year.
If there had been no en bloc push, she probably would have held on to the stocks, she admitted.
Her family got a $120,000 share of the deposit the buyer had forfeited for Tulip Garden.
She noted that she was lucky. Her finances allowed her to buy another home without depending on money from the collective sale.
‘Those who do – and I know a few residents in this situation – may have some problems,’ she said.
Jane thinks Tulip Garden is still a good property because Farrer MRT station will be up in a few years. That could drive prices even further up, she said.
She will keep her unit and rent it out and move to her new home. She has an added reason to do so.
‘This en bloc issue has soured relationships between myself and some of the neighbours here because I didn’t want to sign for it initially. So I don’t want to stay here any more,’ she said.
Sunday Times -27 Apr 2008
Apr 25, 2008
Apr 24, 2008
Flaw in en bloc mediation process IN A collective property sale, minority objectors create uncertainty, resulting in hardship for the 80 per cent majority owners, as follows:
They cannot commit to a new home and property prices may rise against them;
They may commit to a new home but are unable to get the sales proceeds to pay for the new property;
They lose interest on the sales proceeds (which may be a substantial amount) while the minority holds out; and
They are unable to rent at market rates because of the long sale process.To add insult to injury, under the mediation process, minority objectors are legally allowed to negotiate with buyers for higher compensation, which can run into millions of dollars.When successful, such payments to minority objectors are kept ’strictly confidential’.As the law should be equal for all Singaporeans, the authorities should remove this legal loophole by abolishing the mediation process. Objectors should object on the grounds of whether the sale process is fair, transparent and handled in good faith. There must be transparency in the legal system.
Ong Boot Lian (Mdm)
’I think 99 per cent, as she suggested, is too high. Perhaps 90 per cent is more reasonable.’ – MR WILLIAM TAY, responding to Ms Susan Prior’s suggestion to increase the percentage required before a collective property sale can be approved. The current rate is 80 per cent
Source : Straits Times – 23 Apr 2008
Apr 22, 2008
FINLAND GARDENS SAVED

Both the majority sellers at Finland Gardens in Siglap and the intended buyer, Sing Holdings, agreed yesterday it would be best to just let the deal die. And the minority sellers, who were against it from Day One, were thrilled.
The sellers rung the death knell when they halted a High Court appeal yesterday.
They went to court last year to overturn a Strata Titles Board (STB) decision made in November last year.
The STB had thrown out the $49.5 million sale, ruling the deal lacked 80 per cent approval and that the price had not been obtained in good faith.
Sing Holdings initially backed the court appeal but withdrew yesterday its application to intervene in the appeal.
Managing director Lee Sze Hao said Sing Holdings told the sellers late last week that Sing Holdings no longer wanted them to continue with the appeal.
‘The key determining reason for us is the uncertainty of the timing of the sale and market conditions,’ said Mr Lee.
He added that the sale had dragged on for a long time and, considering market uncertainties ahead, it did not make sense to continue waiting.
The Sing Holdings statement said it considered uncertainties over the time needed to procure the order for the sale and market conditions, coupled with the rising costs of construction.
The sellers from 40 units met on Saturday. ‘We agreed to the buyer’s request to call off the deal amicably,’ sales committee chairman Song Koon Poh told The Straits Times. ‘Current market prices for our estate are still favourable… and the long waiting time has worn everyone down.
‘We don’t know how long this will drag on. Assuming the appeal is successful, we will need three months for final completion and another six months to vacate.’
The developer is said to be bearing most of the legal costs.
The minority owners, who fought hard against the sale and won the STB decision last year, were happy that it was over.
The deal for the freehold estate, with 48 units of walk-up flats, is now off. The move comes amid a flat market for private homes, with both buyers and sellers now cautious.
Sing Holdings bought the 98,309 sq ft Finland Gardens for $504 per sq ft on the land area in November 2006, just before prices surged in the first half of last year.
When the estate was launched for sale in July 2006, the owners were hoping for between $50 million and $55 million.
Meanwhile, Sing Holdings has completed the purchase of two collective sale sites – Bellerive and Hillcourt Apartments. Both are at the demolition stage.
Source : Straits Times – 22 Apr 2008
Both the majority sellers at Finland Gardens in Siglap and the intended buyer, Sing Holdings, agreed yesterday it would be best to just let the deal die. And the minority sellers, who were against it from Day One, were thrilled.
The sellers rung the death knell when they halted a High Court appeal yesterday.
The first thing he did was to call his contractor who was renovating the unit he had recently bought there.
‘I cut back by at least 30 per cent. Forget about partitions. And we made things movable, rather than fixed,’ said Mr Sim, 38.
He bought the apartment before the deal was announced.
Two years on, he can finally go ahead and finish the renovations.
As one of the minority owners who contested the sale of Finland Gardens, he is delighted that the estate will no longer be sold.
But he feels that most of the majority owners will not be unhappy either, as the deal was made before the upswing in the property market last year.
Mr Sim, who works as a director in a shipping company, thinks that even if the owners sell the apartments themselves, they can do better than the $504 per square foot price offered by the en bloc buyer – even though the market has since been cooling.
Still, he is happy to stay put at his home and will sell only if the price is right.
The two-year saga has hurt the spirit of the community somewhat, he conceded.
But he feels that most neighbours are still on good terms.
“It’s time for everyone to move on. Let bygones be bygones,” he added.
Source : Sunday Times – 27 Apr 2008
It became a nightmare because the promised $1.1 million from the sale of the couple’s Finland Gardens flat never came, as the deal became snagged in a dispute.
They were still servicing the loan on their flat, in Siglap, when the couple went ahead and took a loan on a second property.
Thus, closure of sorts came for them when, last week, the collective sale was called off. It had been sold in November 2006.
Madam Chia, 47, her husband, 55, and their son, 15, will be staying put in Finland Gardens, which has been their home for the last 14 years.
She felt that the collective sale had rushed her into buying a second flat.
A friend had advised them to buy another place quickly because he expected that property prices would go up further.
‘He was right. Within six months of our new home purchase, prices went crazy,’ said Madam Chia, who works in the media industry.
The new flat, further away in Upper East Coast, cost $800,000. Madam Chia took a 10-year loan that resulted in her having to pay $4,000 – effectively, her monthly salary – every month.
What the couple did not expect was that minority owners would successfully object to the sale.
The couple had ended up so strapped they could not afford to renovate their new house – something they can finally do now.
“And enough of the term ‘en bloc’ please,” Madam Chia said.
Source : Sunday Times – 27 Apr 2008
The owners of Tulip Garden met over the weekend and BT understands that most of them have taken the view to rescind the $516 million collective sale to an associate company of Bravo Building Construction – if the second 5 per cent instalment due to them is not paid by the deadline of midnight yesterday.
BT understands the owners could not accede to the Bravo unit’s request for another extension to pay up the second 5 per cent instalment which was to have been paid yesterday, to June 7, as well as to extend the completion date of the transaction, which is when it would have to pay up the remaining 90 per cent of the purchase price, from May 28 to Aug 7.
However, Tulip Garden’s owners, through their lawyers, are understood to have informed Bravo yesterday that the payment deadline will not be extended and that they reserve their rights to rescind the sale.
A Bravo spokeswoman said yesterday the consortium buying Tulip Garden is seeking an ‘unconditional extension of time’ for making the two payments, that is, it is not prepared to make any further payment to the sellers in exchange for the extensions, until June 7.
If the sale is rescinded, Tulip Garden owners will keep the $25.8 million or 5 per cent of the purchase price they had been paid so far, BT understands.
‘If these extensions are not obtained, the consortium will accept this costly missed opportunity to develop a stunning 350-unit condo with unmatched features in a prominent Holland Road corner,’ Bravo said in a statement.
Bravo has a minority stake in the consortium buying Tulip Garden. The en bloc sale of Tulip Garden was approved by Strata Titles Board in February.
In its statement, Bravo said that it and its majority consortium partners for the purchase of Tulip Garden intend to complete the purchase. Bravo did not identify the consortium partners. ‘Since December 2007, major foreign institutional investors and a few local investors have expressed strong interest to form the consortium. The current turmoil in financial and stock markets matched with sporadic bad news have caused unforeseen delays in securing ultimate approvals to commit funds,’ Bravo said in its statement.
Bravo also indicated that approval for Tulip Garden’s sale from Strata Titles Board in February came earlier than anticipated. ‘Coupled with the consortium’s strategic decision to significantly increase equity to balance the current cautious lending by banks, the current deadlines for next payments have become too constricted and no longer practical,’ it added.
BT understands that Tulip Garden owners declined to further extend the completion date of the sale of Tulip Garden as the STB had already given its order for the sale, binding all owners to a sale, and the sales committee does not have the powers to vary the completion date of the sale beyond the originally agreed May 28. The date was based on three months from receiving the STB order for sale, as stipulated in the sale and purchase agreement for Tulip Garden inked last year.
Assuming Tulip Garden’s sale is rescinded, it may be a while before the prime District 10 site is back on the en bloc bandwagon. If owners wish to do a fresh en bloc sale, they would have to do it under revised collective sales rules that took effect in October last year and which are more stringent.
The $516 million deal for the property worked out to a unit land price of $1,018 psf per plot ratio. No development charge is payable.
Last month, the $162.8 million collective sale of Makeway View in the Newton area to another associate of Bravo was rescinded. BT reported that one per cent of purchase price paid by Bravo so far was forfeited.
Source : Business Times – 8 Apr 2008
THE $516 million collective sale of Tulip Garden condominium near Holland Road seems to be dead in the water after the developer missed a payment deadline yesterday.
The condo owners appear poised to formally call off the deal and pocket a cool $25.8 million – the original 5 per cent deposit paid by developer Bravo Building Construction.
LOSS AND GAIN: Bravo will forfeit its $25.8 million deposit if the Tulip Garden sale is axed. Each owner could pocket over $100,000.
Bravo would forfeit the sum if the deal is scrapped. That would mean each of the 164 unit owners could pocket more than $100,000 on average.
The cancellation of a collective sale because of a cash crunch is a rare event. Bravo and its partners say they have had trouble raising the necessary funds.
Earlier this year, the $162.8 million collective sale of Makeway View in the Newton area was ditched by an associate of Bravo. The firm said a higher-than-expected development charge was the reason for backing out. A deposit of $1.63 million was reportedly forfeited.
Last Saturday, Tulip Garden owners held a meeting and indicated in an informal show of hands that they wanted to cancel the sale if Bravo missed the latest payment, also $25.8 million. This payment had already been delayed at Bravo’s request from the middle of March.
By late yesterday, no payment had been made. Bravo was putting on a brave face but it was, in effect, accepting that the deal appeared to have been lost.
The developer had asked for more payment extensions – to make the next 5 per cent payment by June 7 and then complete the deal by Aug 7.
But based on last Saturday’s meeting, the owners appear unlikely to agree.
Almost all the owners at the meeting indicated that they wished to call off the sale and keep the deposit if Bravo did not pay up by yesterday, according to the people present.
A Bravo spokesman said yesterday that the firm is now seeking an ‘unconditional’ extension of time.
‘If these extensions are not obtained, the consortium will accept this costly missed opportunity to develop a stunning 350-unit condo with unmatched features in a prominent Holland Road corner,’ she said. The condo is on the corner of Holland Road and Farrer Road.
Bravo inked a deal to buy the freehold site in July last year. It was due to have been completed late next month.
The Bravo spokesman said the firm has been seeking partners since November last year.
‘The current turmoil in the financial and stock markets matched with sporadic bad news have caused unforeseen delays in securing ultimate approvals to commit funds,’ said Bravo. It added that the Tulip Garden owners had consented to the sale earlier than anticipated.
‘Coupled with the consortium’s strategic decision to significantly increase equity to balance the current cautious lending by banks, the current deadlines for next payments have become too constricted and no longer practical,’ it said.
Bravo added that it has tied up with two local and two foreign parties to buy Tulip Garden. But unless an extension is given, they will not be offering more money, said the spokesman.
She said that if Tulip Garden owners still want to attempt to sell en bloc, they may face an ‘unwelcome lower bid price’ given weaker market conditions.
Tulip Garden sold for about $1,018 per sq ft (psf), more than its earlier guide price of $900 psf in January last year. The development has 164 units comprising 96 flats, 66 maisonettes and two shophouses.
If the sale works out, flat owners stand to reap $2.5 million to $4.2 million while maisonette owners would receive about $3.4 million each. The shop units would get about $1.1 million each.
Amid last year’s booming market, Bravo also made two other fairly large collective sale deals: Pender Court, off Telok Blangah Road, at $80 million in July last year, and Makeway View.
Bravo has postponed the completion of Pender Court’s sale until late this month.
Given the slower market, more sellers are now open to lower prices. Yesterday, Royalville, a freehold mixed development off Sixth Avenue, was relaunched for sale en bloc at a lower indicative price of around $305 million.
It was offered for sale in a Nov 9 tender, which failed to attract bidders at its earlier guide price of $330 million to $350 million.
How the deal went
July 2007: Bravo Building Construction decides to buy Tulip Garden en bloc for $516 million. It later pays a 5 per cent deposit of $25.8 million.
February 2008: The Strata Titles Board approves the sale. The sale completion date is set for May 28.
March 13: Bravo is due to pay another $25.8 million, but asks for – and is granted – an extension of time until yesterday.
March 18: Bravo asks to extend the payment deadline from yesterday until May 5. It also asks to set back the sale completion date from May 28 to July 23.
March 24: Before agreement for its earlier requests can be given, Bravo asks for further extensions of time to pay by June 7, instead of yesterday, and to complete the sale by Aug 7, instead of May 28.
April 5: Owners indicate in an informal show of hands to cancel the sale and take the $25.8 million deposit if Bravo misses the payment deadline yesterday.
Source : Straits Times – 8 Apr 2008
Lee & Lee partner Ow Yong Thian Soo, representing ‘Tulip Garden’ owners, confirmed that the firm yesterday sent a notice of rescission of the sale- and-purchase agreement for Tulip Garden to Bravo’s lawyers. ‘We also informed them that the sellers will be forfeiting the 5 per cent of the transaction price paid to them so far. And our clients reserve all rights,’ he said.
The notice of rescission was sent to Bravo after it failed to pay the second 5 per cent instalment by the deadline on April 7. Bravo had requested another extension of this deadline to June 7, as well as to extend the completion date of the transaction (which is when it would have had to pay up the remaining 90 per cent of the purchase price) from May 28 to Aug 7. Tulip Garden owners met over the weekend and most indicated they wanted to cancel the sale if Bravo missed the payment deadline on April 7.
Source : Business Times – 9 Apr 2008
Mr Ow Yong Thian Soo of Lee & Lee, who is representing the owners, told The Straits Times yesterday that a notice rescinding the sale was given to the intended buyer – a consortium led by Bravo Building Construction.
The owners also told Bravo that they would retain the 5 per cent deposit, a right allowed under the sale and purchase agreement.
They decided to cancel the sale after Bravo missed Monday’s deadline – which had already been extended from last month – to pay a further 5 per cent of the purchase price. The developer wanted even more time to pay and complete the sale.
The deposit will now be distributed proportionally. Owners who were due to receive $2.5 million to $4.2 million from the sale will now get 5 per cent of these sums once the estate pays expenses of possibly $1 million or more. These include half the conveyancing fees, half the fees of consultants Savills Singapore, plus litigation and administration costs.
Bravo bought Tulip Garden last July and was due to complete the sale late next month. It also has unfinished business at Pender Court, where it missed the $80 million collective sale completion date but has an extension until later this month.
Source : Straits Times – 9 Apr 2008
ONE construction and property development firm, troubled by the cooling property market and credit crisis, has left three en bloc sellers’ hopes of a cash windfall in shambles – and some analysts wondering if it is a victim of circumstances, or a player that bit off more than it could chew.
Since April 1, Bravo Building Construction has made the news for rescinding the sale of Makeway View, and for delaying payments for the purchase of Tulip Garden and Pender Court.
Pender Court’s 48-unit owners are now waiting until April 29 to see if payment is made. If they do not see their cheques of over $1 million each by then, most would “take it that the sale is off”, a resident told Today.
Tulip Garden’s 164 unit owners also look certain to call off the sale, as they voted in a show of hands over the weekend not to give Bravo a longer time to pay.
Bravo has problems raising funds and is seeking an unconditional extension of time.
The company is likely to forfeit its first payment of $25 million, and owners would receive their share of about $125,000 each by this month, a Tulip Garden resident said.
Some market-watchers are sympathetic of Bravo’s plight – going ahead with en bloc purchases last year, seeking partners to come on board since November, and now facing trouble raising funds to pay the sellers.
“It’s unfortunate things didn’t work out. It was because of the timing and all the bad news in the financial markets,” said Mr Eugene Lim, assistant vice-president of ERA Singapore.
Noting that the property market has been relatively quiet since September after the boom earlier, analysts said Bravo may have “just missed the cycle”.
They said the company’s woes showed that dabbling in en bloc was not for everyone – especially not smaller, less experienced players.
Bravo, whose office is in Geylang Lorong 23, was set up in 2002. It ranked fourth in collective sale purchases last year, outbuying City Developments and Hotel Properties.
A lawyer dealing in collective sales found Bravo’s performance “very strange”, because compared to the big players such as United Overseas Land, CapitaLand and Guocoland, it was “nobody at all”.
Smaller companies would have problems securing funds from banks in the current credit crisis, he said.
While it is common for developers to make purchases before roping partners into the project, small players should secure partners before buying sites, said Mr Colin Tan, head of consultancy and research at Chesterton International.
For example, CapitaLand bought Gillman Heights last February, but later sold half its stake to Hotel Properties (HPL) and two private funds.
“It is common for one party to go in first, but for less experienced parties, they might over-reach,” said Mr Tan.
Meanwhile, residents at the Makeway View, Tulip Garden and Pender Court seem quite happy to stay put.
One Tulip Garden owner said the money forfeited by Bravo was some consolation for the “hassle we had to go through”.
Another owner said she gave up her car after moving to Tulip Garden seven years ago, and found its location hard to beat.
A Pender Court resident said she was happy to remain in her home of 22 years “where my children grew up”.
Makeway View resident Mark Devilliers, 31, who has been living there for over a year, did not know that its en bloc had fallen through.
Rejoicing when told of it by Today, he said it would be “sad if a nice building such as Makeway View went en bloc”.
Source : Today – 9 Apr 2008
Kim Eng Holdings managing director Ronald Ooi, in his personal capacity, is believed to have led a group that backed Bravo Building Construction on its failed $516 million purchase of Tulip Garden.
Tulip Garden: The $516m deal failed as the buyer’s request to extend the payment deadline was rejected. The $25.8m deposit was forfeited
BT understands from market sources that Mr Ooi and the group were instrumental in raising the initial $25.8 million or 5 per cent deposit on the Tulip Garden sale which has since been forfeited.
Mr Ooi, who is said to be worth some $300 million, is said to have decided to cut losses on the acquisition in the face of weakening sentiment on the prime property front. ‘It had become more challenging to raise the necessary funds under current market conditions to complete the deal,’ a market watcher said.
Mr Ooi could not be contacted.
The deal, which worked out to $1,018 psf per plot ratio, was inked in July last year when the Singapore property market was enjoying one of its strongest bull runs in recent memory.
The collective sale was approved by Strata Titles Board in February this year.
But last week, lawyers representing Tulip Garden’s owners sent a notice of rescission of the sale and purchase agreement for Tulip Garden to Bravo’s lawyers and notified them that the owners would be forfeiting the 5 per cent of the transaction price paid to them so far as deposit.
This was after Bravo failed to pay the second 5 per cent instalment by the deadline on April 7.
Bravo had requested another extension of this deadline to June 7, as well as to extend the completion date of the transaction (which is when it would have had to pay up the remaining 90 per cent of the purchase price) from May 28 to Aug 7
Tulip Garden owners had a meeting and most decided they wanted to cancel the sale if Bravo missed the payment deadline on April 7.
Source : Business Times – 16 Apr 2008
Worried about spiralling home prices when talk of a collective sale started last year, she liquidated all her stocks in August to help pay for a $3 million apartment near Holland Road.
‘Prices in the area were going up by $200,000 every month. I got scared,’ Jane, 58, told The Sunday Times.
But selling her stocks was the right move – she cashed out before the stock market took a hit late last year.
If there had been no en bloc push, she probably would have held on to the stocks, she admitted.
Her family got a $120,000 share of the deposit the buyer had forfeited for Tulip Garden.
She noted that she was lucky. Her finances allowed her to buy another home without depending on money from the collective sale.
‘Those who do – and I know a few residents in this situation – may have some problems,’ she said.
Jane thinks Tulip Garden is still a good property because Farrer MRT station will be up in a few years. That could drive prices even further up, she said.
She will keep her unit and rent it out and move to her new home. She has an added reason to do so.
‘This en bloc issue has soured relationships between myself and some of the neighbours here because I didn’t want to sign for it initially. So I don’t want to stay here any more,’ she said.
Source : Sunday Times – 27 Apr 2008
The $162.8 million collective sale of Makeway View in the Newton area to an associate of Bravo Building Construction has been rescinded.
BT understands that the one per cent of purchase price paid by Bravo so far has been forfeited.
A Bravo spokeswoman told BT yesterday that it had earlier sought payment extensions to ascertain the quantum of development charge (DC) payable.
Confirming the move to rescind the sale, she added: ‘We decided not to proceed with the Makeway deal as the actual DC turned out to be higher than what we had been told. So the breakeven price would end up being much higher than what we expected. That’s why my partner (in the proposed acquisition) decided not to proceed further.’
She confirmed that the initial information about the DC did not come from Knight Frank, which was the marketing agent representing the owners of Makeway View.
The $162.8 million deal for Makeway View announced in early November last year, reflected a unit land price of about $1,583 psf ppr including an estimated $21.5 million DC at the time.
Bravo group was one of the biggest buyers of collective sale sites last year, with deals like Tulip Garden for $516 million. Bravo formed separate associate companies for the acquisitions of the various collective sales sites, as the plan was to have different partners for each project.
A Bravo associate has so far paid the initial 5 per cent deposit on Tulip Garden, amounting to about $25 million.
Tulip Garden’s collective sale was approved by STB in late February and the Bravo associate was supposed to have made the second 5 per cent payment shortly after that. However, it requested for an extension on this till early April.
Bravo’s spokeswoman said her company is seeking a further extension to early June to pay this sum and to also extend the completion deadline for the deal from late May currently to early August.
‘We need time to sort out an agreement with our partner and at the same time, sort out the financing arrangement.’
Tulip Garden’s owners are expected to meet this weekend to decide whether to give the payment extensions. Tulip Garden’s price works out to $1,018 psf per plot ratio price (no DC is payable).
Source : Business Times – 1 Apr 2008
Apr 20, 2008
Cut out the middle-man
Here’s a WILD IDEA.A lawyer in an en bloc sale is essential.
Property agents, on the other hand, are dispensable.
Let’s take a leaf out of the HDB book. They now run classes for those owners who wish to cut out the middle-man and buy/sell their unit on the open market by themselves; thus reducing their costs.
The govt could run similar classes for private owners who wish to sell their estates en bloc.
1) Holding EOGMs is a breeze. The managing agent in the estate will take care of all the necessary preparations. Anyone can read up the rules and regulations and follow instructions.
2) Owners can appoint their own Valuer to do a valuation. At least you can be SURE that the valuation is genuine and independent.
3) Owners will not be enticed, seduced, duped, cajoled, intimidated, harassed and/or sweet-talked into signing the CSA.
4) Signing the CSA can be done en mass only after 80/90% have indicated their intention to sell.
5) How difficult can it be to put an advertisement in the newspaper?
7) Interested developer-buyers will have to TENDER upfront, thus ensuring the best price possible for owners.
8) It can be very simply executed – whether your estate is plonk in the middle of a busy housing estate or in district 10, it will sell itself.
Too long, estate owners have been brainwashed into thinking their estate needs to be ‘marketed’ before anyone will be interested in buying. Says who? Property agents! That you need their ‘expertise and professionalism” …. but do we really? Older estates in choice areas market themselves.
Do we really need to approach developers – or will they naturally come to us, after all, Singapore is tiny, they have no choice, land is more precious than gold and developers should be grateful that the owners are offering them a second bite at the cherry through redevelopment.
“Hey-hup! 702,162 sq ft of land smack in the middle of a booming housing estate, regional hub, walking distance to two MRTs, shopping centres, hospital, markets, CC, 7 minutes to the airport, 2 minutes to PIE etc……..any takers?”
They need your land more than you need to sell.
So what if they don’t bite the first time, genuine homeowners can wait, the false sense of urgency is created by the property agent and speculators in your estate. Take a step back - don't believe all their spiel.
It is time for owners to wrest control from those professional outsiders who have vested interests in the sale of their homes- and save themselves millions of dollars to boot. No doubt, it is more expedient and easier to delegate to a 3rd party - but how sure can you ever be that they will perform their duties in your best interests? Knowing that their on-going (repeat) business relationship with developer-buyers is more important than any one-off arrangement they have with you. Knowing that the faster they sell, the quicker they get their commission. Knowing that their commission is pegged to a wide sale price, ie, they will get the same commission if they sell at $X dollars as opposed to $XX dollars... so why should they put in the extra work for no return? This is one of the reasons why so many estates are sold at the minimum reserve price, much to the chagrin of the majority owners.