Thursday, 26 July 2007

STB Hearing - Horizon Towers

Another "Going to Court" case, this time on Horizon Towers at Leonie Hill. Given the objections raised (that the price has become outdated, that some majority owners now wish to rescind the CSA, that the deal was not done in good faith) fall into gray legal territory, it's no wonder the lawyers representing the respective parties are all heavyweights (Senior Counsels & Partners).

Estate: Horizon Towers, Leonie Hill
Stage
: Sold at $850psf. STB Hearing 27/7/07 to 2/8/07
Party: Minority owners represented by Kannan Ramesh and Karam Parmer from Tan Kok Quan Partnership, and Philip Fong from Harry Elias Partnership. 1 minority owner represented by Senior Counsel Michael Hwang.
Collective Sale Lawyer: Tan Rajah & Cheah [As of 7 Aug 07 although news reports indicated Drew & Napier as representing the sellers (19-21 Jun 07) earlier]
Lawyer for Buyer: K Shanmugam and William Ong from Allen & Gledhill
Reason: Deal not done in good faith. Objection to Price. Not satisfied with SC's performance, SC not canvassing views of owners prior to sale despite improved market conditions.
Details: Owners (both majority and minority) objected to the fact that estate was sold 'on the cheap' in Feb 07 at $850psf when 6 mths later, Grangeford nearby is asking for over $2000. Offer price for Horizon was made in Apr 06 and in the following 9 mths, property prices surged to the extent price was outdated. Effort to mediate between objectors and SC failed so hearing to be conducted. 39 owners initiated EOGM to replace Sale Committee but was unsuccessful (acting for several owners - Senior Counsel C.R. Rajah of Tan, Rajah and Cheah). Application for judicial review of STB's decision not to postpone hearing rejected.

[Note: All information provided here summarised/extracted from BT/ST news sources. For sake of brevity and reading, references are omitted but if you wish to have them please contact me. Likewise for errors.]

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

If the owners win, it will make a laughing stock of our legal system and render useless, contract law.

On second thought, I guess its better that them owners go through due process and then systematically put down than to have them brewing emotions in the dark.

Anonymous said...

heh.. giving false hope is the utmost form of cruelty..

and i dun mean just the STB.. you know who you(s) are ^_^

Anonymous said...

Curious isn't it, then, that senior partners and veteran litigators are taking on a case which some believe will "make a laughing stock of our legal system". Maybe they feel there are grounds for the case? Or then again, some would say "where there's money involved..."

Anonymous said...

Senior partners and veteran litigators are not cheap. And they get paid whether they win or lose.

All these enblocs; the only sure winners are the marketing agents and the lawyers.

DrMinority said...

But will reputable law firms such as these, with their veterans, take on jobs that they are sure won't win? Given that they can choose to be selective, I don't think so. In any case, it'd be nice to hear their arguments if that's at all publishable!

Anonymous said...

My view? the partners and the litigators just want exposure in the media. These type of news beats any kind of word of mouth; I'm assuming advertising is not allowed in their profession.

Anonymous said...

Application dismissed by STB on technicality.