Source : Straits Times - 22 Jul 2008
Majority owners’ last-ditch bid to push through collective sale may bear fruit
AN ELEVENTH-HOUR bid by the owners of Tampines Court to save their collective sale from petering out seems to be paying off.
The deal was in danger of collapsing after the sales committee delayed seeking mandatory Strata Titles Board (STB) approval for the sale.
The STB had scheduled to hear the case only next month, but the sales agreement with Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint expires this Friday. The two property giants do not look keen to grant an extension.
As a result, the sales committee last week applied successfully to the High Court to have the STB hear the case earlier.
At yesterday’s hearing, those who objected to the sale had their say, clearing the way for lawyers for majority and minority owners to submit closing statements in writing by Thursday.
The STB had initially set yesterday’s hearing for Aug 7, but that would have killed the $405 million collective sale as it would come after the July 25 deadline.
The deadline fix stemmed from the sales committee’s decision to delay seeking mandatory STB approval for the deal until Jan 7, although all the necessary conditions had been met as early as July 25 last year.
It wanted to wait until the board had ruled on the Gillman Heights sale. Any ruling could have had a bearing on the fate of the Tampines Court deal as both are former Housing and Urban Development Company estates.
The squeeze on dates became potentially disastrous when the STB dismissed an appeal to bring forward the Aug 7 hearing, forcing majority owners to appeal to the High Court last week.
Lawyer N. Sreenivasan, who represents the minority owners, said yesterday the High Court did not explicitly order the STB to rule by Friday. But the board’s deputy president, Mr Alfonso Ang, said it was likely to, in the ’spirit’ of the court’s order.
Sales committee chairman Mathew Lee, who spent the most time on the witness stand yesterday, was grilled on whether he had acted in the owners’ best interests on the issue of the estate’s valuation and the method of distribution of sale proceeds.
The lively session also drew a few laughs, particularly when Senior Counsel Andre Yeap, who represents the majority owners, said Mr Sreenivasan was ‘highly intelligent’, to which the latter interjected: ‘No, I am not.’
Resident Niamh Choo, who also took the stand, told The Straits Times later that one of the minority owners’ biggest concern was that some of the proceeds would be distributed unfairly.
In his closing statement, Mr Yeap said there was insufficient evidence that the sale lacked good faith.
Mr Sreenivasan will make his closing statements to the board today.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
July 21 hearing for Tampines Court case
Source : Straits Times - 19 Jul 2008
THE Tampines Court en-bloc sale was handed a lifeline by the High Court yesterday when it ordered the Strata Titles Board (STB) to bring forward a crucial hearing date.
Just a week ago, the sale had seemed as good as dead when the STB refused to change an Aug 7 hearing date. This meant the hearing would take place after the July 25 expiry date of the sales deal.
And the buyers - Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint - had already said they were unlikely to extend the deadline.
But the court yesterday granted an appeal by the majority owners. This means the STB must now hear remaining objections to the sale on Monday, four days before the deal expires.
Even with the new hearing date, STB registrar Bryan Chew said there was no guarantee a decision will be made by July 25.
‘(It) depends on how long the witnesses take on the stand,’ he said.
Thereafter, lawyers have to make their submissions and the board has to deliberate.
Senior counsel Michael Hwang, who was acting for the majority owners, told The Straits Times that the High Court application was made on two grounds.
First, that the hearing was set for a date beyond the six- month life of the specific board constituted to hear the estate’s sale.
The owners also contended that it was wrong for STB to fix that date when it knew the sales agreement would expire on July 25.
Lawyer N. Sreenivasan argued for the minority owners and said that the STB was not obliged to complete a sale by a date set by the sellers and buyers.
The estate’s deadline squeeze stemmed from a sales committee decision to delay seeking STB approval for the deal until the board had ruled on the Gillman Heights sale.
The decision on Gillman Heights could have had a bearing on the fate of the Tampines Court deal as both were former HUDC estates.
The Tampines Court committee eventually applied for sale approval on Jan 7, although all the necessary conditions had been met as early as July 25 last year.
Meanwhile, the sale has caused much tension and division in the estate.
‘The whole en-bloc process has been dragging for too long and is upsetting residents,’ said owner Mansur Husain.
Majority owners feel the sale price - about $700,000 for each unit - is above what the homes could get on the open market. But minority owners believe the amount is too low, given that private home prices in Tampines have shot up in the last year.
An independent analyst, Savills’ director of marketing and business development Ku Swee Yong, said fair value is likely from $500,000 to $700,000.
Some homes can command premiums based on individual attributes, he said. Comparing prices of Tampines Court to those of new condos in the area is ‘not too accurate’ as the estate does not have comparable facilities, he pointed out.
THE Tampines Court en-bloc sale was handed a lifeline by the High Court yesterday when it ordered the Strata Titles Board (STB) to bring forward a crucial hearing date.
Just a week ago, the sale had seemed as good as dead when the STB refused to change an Aug 7 hearing date. This meant the hearing would take place after the July 25 expiry date of the sales deal.
And the buyers - Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint - had already said they were unlikely to extend the deadline.
But the court yesterday granted an appeal by the majority owners. This means the STB must now hear remaining objections to the sale on Monday, four days before the deal expires.
Even with the new hearing date, STB registrar Bryan Chew said there was no guarantee a decision will be made by July 25.
‘(It) depends on how long the witnesses take on the stand,’ he said.
Thereafter, lawyers have to make their submissions and the board has to deliberate.
Senior counsel Michael Hwang, who was acting for the majority owners, told The Straits Times that the High Court application was made on two grounds.
First, that the hearing was set for a date beyond the six- month life of the specific board constituted to hear the estate’s sale.
The owners also contended that it was wrong for STB to fix that date when it knew the sales agreement would expire on July 25.
Lawyer N. Sreenivasan argued for the minority owners and said that the STB was not obliged to complete a sale by a date set by the sellers and buyers.
The estate’s deadline squeeze stemmed from a sales committee decision to delay seeking STB approval for the deal until the board had ruled on the Gillman Heights sale.
The decision on Gillman Heights could have had a bearing on the fate of the Tampines Court deal as both were former HUDC estates.
The Tampines Court committee eventually applied for sale approval on Jan 7, although all the necessary conditions had been met as early as July 25 last year.
Meanwhile, the sale has caused much tension and division in the estate.
‘The whole en-bloc process has been dragging for too long and is upsetting residents,’ said owner Mansur Husain.
Majority owners feel the sale price - about $700,000 for each unit - is above what the homes could get on the open market. But minority owners believe the amount is too low, given that private home prices in Tampines have shot up in the last year.
An independent analyst, Savills’ director of marketing and business development Ku Swee Yong, said fair value is likely from $500,000 to $700,000.
Some homes can command premiums based on individual attributes, he said. Comparing prices of Tampines Court to those of new condos in the area is ‘not too accurate’ as the estate does not have comparable facilities, he pointed out.
Tampines Court owners file appeal
Source : Straits Times - 16 Jul 2008
ANGRY owners at Tampines Court have opened up two fronts in their battle to save their estate’s $405 million collective sale.
One bid saw the sales committee lodge a High Court appeal to overturn a ruling by the Strata Titles Board (STB), while some owners made a direct plea to National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan.
The 10 or so owners went to a weekly Meet-The-People session on Monday night to voice their concerns to Mr Mah, the MP for the Tampines ward.
The Straits Times understands that Mr Mah, in his capacity as a local MP, has agreed to appeal to the STB on the owners’ behalf to bring forward a crucial hearing date.
The timing of that hearing - scheduled to let some sale objectors have a say - is also at the centre of the sales committee’s legal appeal.
The committee wants the High Court to overturn an STB ruling on when the hearing should be held.
The board said on Friday the hearing should go ahead as planned on Aug 7.
The date, however, comes after the sales agreement legally expires on July 25. If the hearing is held on Aug 7, the sale cannot be done as scheduled on July 25, effectively killing it.
Two sales committee members said in an affidavit filed on Monday that the STB failed to take into account that any hearing after July 25 ‘will be academic’, as the sales agreement would expire and the buyers were unlikely to extend the deadline.
The buyers - Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint - have already said they ‘are ready to complete the deal’, but ‘the onus was upon the vendors to secure the STB order within the agreed timeframe’.
The estate’s tight deadline stemmed from a sales committee decision to delay lodging its application for STB approval of the sale until Jan 7 this year although all the necessary conditions had already been met as early as July 25 last year.
It told the board that it wanted to await the outcome of legal challenges over the contentious Gillman Heights sale, as this could have a bearing on the fate of the Tampines Court deal.
As it turned out, the High Court last month cleared the way for the Gillman Heights deal and, in so doing, removed any potential obstacle to the Tampines Court sale as well.
Some owners told The Straits Times that they felt this deadline mess was the STB’s fault.
Madam Irene Cheang said it was the board’s duty to see the sale through within the six-month guideline, and that it had been inefficient in processing the sale.
STB registrar Bryan Chew stood by the board’s decision on the date of the hearing.
The time needed to get a sale approved depends on a variety of factors, including the number of objectors, the size of the estate and the complexity of the case, he said.
‘This is not the first time that we’ve taken more than six months,’ he added.
The STB said it had pencilled in the Aug 7 date after listening to sale objectors from June 16 to 18 and ‘taking into account the availability of all parties and the board’.
It has become a nerve-wracking time for the owners, as many have committed themselves to other properties.
Owner K. Balasubramaniam, 55, said residents could lose about $200,000 should the sale fail. He said the average open market value of a typical unit was $500,000 - while each owner would get about $700,000 should the sale go through.
Lawyers for the majority and minority owners declined to comment.
The Straits Times understands that there will be a High Court hearing this afternoon. It will be closed to the public.
ANGRY owners at Tampines Court have opened up two fronts in their battle to save their estate’s $405 million collective sale.
One bid saw the sales committee lodge a High Court appeal to overturn a ruling by the Strata Titles Board (STB), while some owners made a direct plea to National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan.
The 10 or so owners went to a weekly Meet-The-People session on Monday night to voice their concerns to Mr Mah, the MP for the Tampines ward.
The Straits Times understands that Mr Mah, in his capacity as a local MP, has agreed to appeal to the STB on the owners’ behalf to bring forward a crucial hearing date.
The timing of that hearing - scheduled to let some sale objectors have a say - is also at the centre of the sales committee’s legal appeal.
The committee wants the High Court to overturn an STB ruling on when the hearing should be held.
The board said on Friday the hearing should go ahead as planned on Aug 7.
The date, however, comes after the sales agreement legally expires on July 25. If the hearing is held on Aug 7, the sale cannot be done as scheduled on July 25, effectively killing it.
Two sales committee members said in an affidavit filed on Monday that the STB failed to take into account that any hearing after July 25 ‘will be academic’, as the sales agreement would expire and the buyers were unlikely to extend the deadline.
The buyers - Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint - have already said they ‘are ready to complete the deal’, but ‘the onus was upon the vendors to secure the STB order within the agreed timeframe’.
The estate’s tight deadline stemmed from a sales committee decision to delay lodging its application for STB approval of the sale until Jan 7 this year although all the necessary conditions had already been met as early as July 25 last year.
It told the board that it wanted to await the outcome of legal challenges over the contentious Gillman Heights sale, as this could have a bearing on the fate of the Tampines Court deal.
As it turned out, the High Court last month cleared the way for the Gillman Heights deal and, in so doing, removed any potential obstacle to the Tampines Court sale as well.
Some owners told The Straits Times that they felt this deadline mess was the STB’s fault.
Madam Irene Cheang said it was the board’s duty to see the sale through within the six-month guideline, and that it had been inefficient in processing the sale.
STB registrar Bryan Chew stood by the board’s decision on the date of the hearing.
The time needed to get a sale approved depends on a variety of factors, including the number of objectors, the size of the estate and the complexity of the case, he said.
‘This is not the first time that we’ve taken more than six months,’ he added.
The STB said it had pencilled in the Aug 7 date after listening to sale objectors from June 16 to 18 and ‘taking into account the availability of all parties and the board’.
It has become a nerve-wracking time for the owners, as many have committed themselves to other properties.
Owner K. Balasubramaniam, 55, said residents could lose about $200,000 should the sale fail. He said the average open market value of a typical unit was $500,000 - while each owner would get about $700,000 should the sale go through.
Lawyers for the majority and minority owners declined to comment.
The Straits Times understands that there will be a High Court hearing this afternoon. It will be closed to the public.
Tampines Court collective sale in peril
Straits Times July 12, 2008
STB rules not to bring forward Aug 7 hearing, which must take place before deal is signed by July 25 deadline
By Jessica Cheam
CRUCIAL: With no extension, the Tampines Court sale agreement will likely lapse on July 25. -- PHOTO: WWW.CHANKOKHONG.COM.SG
THE sales committee at Tampines Court looks to have shot itself in the foot after a ruling by the Strata Titles Board (STB) yesterday almost certainly killed off its estate's $405 million collective sale.
It delayed seeking mandatory STB approval for the deal and is now caught in a deadline trap of its own making.
The key date is July 25, that is when the estate's sales committee must complete the deal. However, that looks impossible now after yesterday's STB decision.
The board ruled that it would not bring forward an Aug 7 hearing set to allow testimony from witnesses that have yet to be called.
The STB had pencilled in the date after listening to sale objectors on June 16 to 18 and 'taking into account the availability of all parties and the board', it said.
Until that Aug 7 hearing is conducted, the sale cannot be signed and sealed
The Straits Times understands that the sales committee wanted a date change as the buyers - Frasers Centrepoint and Far East Organization - will not extend the completion deadline.
With no extension, the sale agreement will likely lapse on July 25. This means the developers can walk away from a deal that looks far less compelling now than last July, given souring homebuyer sentiment and escalating construction costs.
However, this might be a blessing in disguise for some owners at the estate. The deal was inked just before the property boom at prices around $430 per sq ft (psf), but private homes in Tampines now go from $550 to $700 psf.
The deadline crunch seems to be of the sales committee's own making.
The conditions of the sales agreement were met on July 25 last year but the committee delayed applying for the standard STB approval until Jan 7.
The committee told the STB that it wanted to await the outcome of legal challenges over the contentious Gillman Heights sale.
The committee argued that if the Gillman Heights sale was halted over issues of majority consent, it would have made a Tampines Court application futile.
In the Gillman Heights case, minority owners appealed all the way to the High Court, claiming that collective sale rules did not apply to former Housing and Urban Development Company (HUDC) estates.
Tampines Court is also a former HUDC estate so any ruling could have killed its own collective sale.
But Justice Choo Han Teck ruled last month that a privatised HUDC estate can be sold collectively if the requisite conditions are met.
While that also cleared the way for the Tampines Court sale, it left the sales committee with little time to tie up loose ends, including objections by minority owners.
The STB registrar had some sympathy yesterday for the committee's argument about why it delayed applying for sale approval.
But he pointed out that a sale agreement has a deadline and, by waiting for the High Court ruling, the committtee took the risk that it would not have enough time to get a ruling from the board before the expiry date.
'This is a calculated risk, whose consequences they will have to bear,' he said.
'The board should not be pressured to accommodate a deadline set by the applicants and the buyer.'
A lawyer acting for the minority owners told The Straits Times that he did not want to comment on the outcome.
The one lifeline for the majority owners would be if the buyers extend the deadline but that also looks a lost cause.
Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint told The Straits Times last night that they are ready to complete the deal, but 'the onus was upon the vendors to secure the STB order within the agreed timeframe, which is about 16 months from the date of the agreement'.
Savills director of marketing and business development Ku Swee Yong said since the deal was inked last July, construction costs have escalated a lot faster than mass market property prices.
'The project, unsurprisingly, has become less attractive,' he said.
Tampines Court is a sizeable 702,162 sq ft site with 560 units. It could be redeveloped into a new condominium with around 1,580 units averaging 1,300 sq ft.
Key proceedings
March 25, 2007: Tampines Court's sales committee enters a sale and purchase agreement with Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint.
July 25, 2007: The conditions of the sales agreement are fulfilled.
Jan 7: The sales committee applies to the Strata Titles Board (STB) for sale approval and the minority owners then file their objections.
June 16 to 18: The STB hears the objections and sets the next hearing for Aug 7.
June 30: The sales committee applies to bring the Aug 7 hearing forward to before the sale's July 25 expiry date.
July 11: STB dismisses the sales committee's request
STB rules not to bring forward Aug 7 hearing, which must take place before deal is signed by July 25 deadline
By Jessica Cheam
CRUCIAL: With no extension, the Tampines Court sale agreement will likely lapse on July 25. -- PHOTO: WWW.CHANKOKHONG.COM.SG
THE sales committee at Tampines Court looks to have shot itself in the foot after a ruling by the Strata Titles Board (STB) yesterday almost certainly killed off its estate's $405 million collective sale.
It delayed seeking mandatory STB approval for the deal and is now caught in a deadline trap of its own making.
The key date is July 25, that is when the estate's sales committee must complete the deal. However, that looks impossible now after yesterday's STB decision.
The board ruled that it would not bring forward an Aug 7 hearing set to allow testimony from witnesses that have yet to be called.
The STB had pencilled in the date after listening to sale objectors on June 16 to 18 and 'taking into account the availability of all parties and the board', it said.
Until that Aug 7 hearing is conducted, the sale cannot be signed and sealed
The Straits Times understands that the sales committee wanted a date change as the buyers - Frasers Centrepoint and Far East Organization - will not extend the completion deadline.
With no extension, the sale agreement will likely lapse on July 25. This means the developers can walk away from a deal that looks far less compelling now than last July, given souring homebuyer sentiment and escalating construction costs.
However, this might be a blessing in disguise for some owners at the estate. The deal was inked just before the property boom at prices around $430 per sq ft (psf), but private homes in Tampines now go from $550 to $700 psf.
The deadline crunch seems to be of the sales committee's own making.
The conditions of the sales agreement were met on July 25 last year but the committee delayed applying for the standard STB approval until Jan 7.
The committee told the STB that it wanted to await the outcome of legal challenges over the contentious Gillman Heights sale.
The committee argued that if the Gillman Heights sale was halted over issues of majority consent, it would have made a Tampines Court application futile.
In the Gillman Heights case, minority owners appealed all the way to the High Court, claiming that collective sale rules did not apply to former Housing and Urban Development Company (HUDC) estates.
Tampines Court is also a former HUDC estate so any ruling could have killed its own collective sale.
But Justice Choo Han Teck ruled last month that a privatised HUDC estate can be sold collectively if the requisite conditions are met.
While that also cleared the way for the Tampines Court sale, it left the sales committee with little time to tie up loose ends, including objections by minority owners.
The STB registrar had some sympathy yesterday for the committee's argument about why it delayed applying for sale approval.
But he pointed out that a sale agreement has a deadline and, by waiting for the High Court ruling, the committtee took the risk that it would not have enough time to get a ruling from the board before the expiry date.
'This is a calculated risk, whose consequences they will have to bear,' he said.
'The board should not be pressured to accommodate a deadline set by the applicants and the buyer.'
A lawyer acting for the minority owners told The Straits Times that he did not want to comment on the outcome.
The one lifeline for the majority owners would be if the buyers extend the deadline but that also looks a lost cause.
Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint told The Straits Times last night that they are ready to complete the deal, but 'the onus was upon the vendors to secure the STB order within the agreed timeframe, which is about 16 months from the date of the agreement'.
Savills director of marketing and business development Ku Swee Yong said since the deal was inked last July, construction costs have escalated a lot faster than mass market property prices.
'The project, unsurprisingly, has become less attractive,' he said.
Tampines Court is a sizeable 702,162 sq ft site with 560 units. It could be redeveloped into a new condominium with around 1,580 units averaging 1,300 sq ft.
Key proceedings
March 25, 2007: Tampines Court's sales committee enters a sale and purchase agreement with Far East Organization and Frasers Centrepoint.
July 25, 2007: The conditions of the sales agreement are fulfilled.
Jan 7: The sales committee applies to the Strata Titles Board (STB) for sale approval and the minority owners then file their objections.
June 16 to 18: The STB hears the objections and sets the next hearing for Aug 7.
June 30: The sales committee applies to bring the Aug 7 hearing forward to before the sale's July 25 expiry date.
July 11: STB dismisses the sales committee's request
Time to relook en bloc rules
Source : Weekend Today - 19 Jul 2008
I REFER to “Landmark ruling” (July 18).
The judge has ruled that the fact that a higher offer was received for the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers is not within the purview of the Strata Title Board (STB); neither are any allegations of less-than-stellar conduct among the parties.
And that if the STB has to hear such matters, it would never get its job done.
So, if I get an offer for my home of say, $7 million and the en bloc sales committee of my condo gets an offer of $5 million, would my recourse be to sue in the courts while the STB can rule in favour of the $5-million sale and proceed? This defies logic and good business sense.
Moreover, if the STB is not equipped to handle matters pertinent to good faith, the highest sale price, the conduct of sales committee, et cetera, it is time that the approval of en bloc sales be given to a specialised legal tribunal which is equipped to do so.
Further, if the Land Titles (Strata) Act does not provide sufficient coverage to protect the rights of a subsidiaryproprietor who expects a fair and holistic hearing of their grievances, it is time for all en bloc sales to be held inabatement until such matters can be seriously addressed.
Horizon Towers is a mega test case for en bloc sales and it is time to take stock of our laws.
Ong Cher Meng
I REFER to “Landmark ruling” (July 18).
The judge has ruled that the fact that a higher offer was received for the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers is not within the purview of the Strata Title Board (STB); neither are any allegations of less-than-stellar conduct among the parties.
And that if the STB has to hear such matters, it would never get its job done.
So, if I get an offer for my home of say, $7 million and the en bloc sales committee of my condo gets an offer of $5 million, would my recourse be to sue in the courts while the STB can rule in favour of the $5-million sale and proceed? This defies logic and good business sense.
Moreover, if the STB is not equipped to handle matters pertinent to good faith, the highest sale price, the conduct of sales committee, et cetera, it is time that the approval of en bloc sales be given to a specialised legal tribunal which is equipped to do so.
Further, if the Land Titles (Strata) Act does not provide sufficient coverage to protect the rights of a subsidiaryproprietor who expects a fair and holistic hearing of their grievances, it is time for all en bloc sales to be held inabatement until such matters can be seriously addressed.
Horizon Towers is a mega test case for en bloc sales and it is time to take stock of our laws.
Ong Cher Meng
Landmark en bloc ruling
Source : Today - 18 Jul 2008
Judge sets out role of Strata Titles Board and which of its findings can be challenged
IT IS a situation that may apply to some en bloc deals: The selling price could have been higher if the sales committee or its agent had tried harder to secure a better deal.
In the case of Horizon Towers, a potential buyer was even standing by with a higher price than the one that was eventually chosen.
But that cannot be reason enough to disallow an en bloc sale, according to Justice Choo Han Teck as he brought a protracted saga to an end.
In a landmark decision, the judge set out the role of the Strata Titles Board as well as which of its findings can be challenged, and which ones cannot.
When it comes to price, as long as the STB finds that a purchase price is fair, which would make it a “finding of fact” in legal parlance, it would have fulfilled its duty and is entitled to approve an en bloc sale.
Minority residents at Horizon Towers who argued that the $500-million sale to Horizon Partners Private Limited (HPPL) was done in bad faith - as evidenced by Vineyard Holdings’ higher offer of $510 million :- had failed to prove their case.
Justice Choo found “no error of law” and said the High Court “cannot and will not” interfere in findings of fact made by the STB.
“Whether it was the right time to sell, or that the sales committee ought to have made a little more effort to persuade the purchaser to offer more, are not crucial matters that oblige the STB to withhold approval.
“Nor would it be the concern of the STB that some, or all, of the appellants might have consented had the Vineyard offer been made known to all of them,” he said.
If the STB were to make such enquiries, it “would never get its job done within the time limited”.
The minority owners had appealed to reverse a Dec 7 decision by STB to approve the sale. But if residents believe that the sales committee had “deliberately or negligently” not pursued a higher offer, resulting in a financial loss to them, the recourse is through litigation in the courts, said Justice Choo.
“It is necessary for this point to be made, not to encourage further litigation, but to emphasise that a subsidiary proprietor who does not wish to sell his unit can only object to the en bloc sale on such grounds as the relevant statutes allow,” he said.
And, the statutes do not allow the STB to deal with “allegations and counter-allegations against parties” as its tribunal hearing does not give such parties “the full recourse of trial to defend themselves”.
He concluded that all sides were treated fairly in this deal as “fairness requires only that the rules and regulations of each en bloc deal to be properly and duly administered”.
Judge sets out role of Strata Titles Board and which of its findings can be challenged
IT IS a situation that may apply to some en bloc deals: The selling price could have been higher if the sales committee or its agent had tried harder to secure a better deal.
In the case of Horizon Towers, a potential buyer was even standing by with a higher price than the one that was eventually chosen.
But that cannot be reason enough to disallow an en bloc sale, according to Justice Choo Han Teck as he brought a protracted saga to an end.
In a landmark decision, the judge set out the role of the Strata Titles Board as well as which of its findings can be challenged, and which ones cannot.
When it comes to price, as long as the STB finds that a purchase price is fair, which would make it a “finding of fact” in legal parlance, it would have fulfilled its duty and is entitled to approve an en bloc sale.
Minority residents at Horizon Towers who argued that the $500-million sale to Horizon Partners Private Limited (HPPL) was done in bad faith - as evidenced by Vineyard Holdings’ higher offer of $510 million :- had failed to prove their case.
Justice Choo found “no error of law” and said the High Court “cannot and will not” interfere in findings of fact made by the STB.
“Whether it was the right time to sell, or that the sales committee ought to have made a little more effort to persuade the purchaser to offer more, are not crucial matters that oblige the STB to withhold approval.
“Nor would it be the concern of the STB that some, or all, of the appellants might have consented had the Vineyard offer been made known to all of them,” he said.
If the STB were to make such enquiries, it “would never get its job done within the time limited”.
The minority owners had appealed to reverse a Dec 7 decision by STB to approve the sale. But if residents believe that the sales committee had “deliberately or negligently” not pursued a higher offer, resulting in a financial loss to them, the recourse is through litigation in the courts, said Justice Choo.
“It is necessary for this point to be made, not to encourage further litigation, but to emphasise that a subsidiary proprietor who does not wish to sell his unit can only object to the en bloc sale on such grounds as the relevant statutes allow,” he said.
And, the statutes do not allow the STB to deal with “allegations and counter-allegations against parties” as its tribunal hearing does not give such parties “the full recourse of trial to defend themselves”.
He concluded that all sides were treated fairly in this deal as “fairness requires only that the rules and regulations of each en bloc deal to be properly and duly administered”.
High Court dismisses Horizon Towers en bloc appeals
Source : Business Times - 17 Jul 2008
Hotel Properties Limited on Thursday said Singapore’s High Court has dismissed the appeals by the minority sellers in Horizon Towers’ en bloc sale.
The minority sellers had made the appeal in January 2008 against the Strata Titles Board’s decision delivered on December 7, 2007 which would allow the en bloc sale of the condominium to proceed.
HPL, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million for the condo located in the prime district. The deal was inked in January last year, before the property prices shot up.
But the closure of the collective sale was delayed after a group of minority owners put up an appeal saying the sale was carried out in bad faith. — BT Newsroom
Hotel Properties Limited on Thursday said Singapore’s High Court has dismissed the appeals by the minority sellers in Horizon Towers’ en bloc sale.
The minority sellers had made the appeal in January 2008 against the Strata Titles Board’s decision delivered on December 7, 2007 which would allow the en bloc sale of the condominium to proceed.
HPL, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million for the condo located in the prime district. The deal was inked in January last year, before the property prices shot up.
But the closure of the collective sale was delayed after a group of minority owners put up an appeal saying the sale was carried out in bad faith. — BT Newsroom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)