Given the hundreds of enbloc applications that have gone through STB, isn't it ironic that there's been very few STB dismissals so far? Prior to Horizon Towers, the only two cases I could gather were Mandalay Court (March 2000) and Grenville Condominium (June 2000), both occurred right after the Land Titles (Strata) Act amendments in 1999. Mandalay and Grenville were dismissed due to procedural errors in their enbloc sale application, and in both cases relating to extraordinary general meetings (EOGMs) either being held late (Mandalay) or not being held (Grenville). Because of this technicality, STB dismissed their applications. Subsequently, both estates' SCs reapplied for a 2nd application to STB and both were approved.
On 3rd August, Singapore Stock Exchange News listed the following announcement about Horizon Towers:-
Following the hearing of the Strata Titles Board ("STB") in connection with the application (the "Application") by the vendors of the Property for the STB to order the sale of the Property in accordance with the Option to Purchase, the Company wishes to announce that the STB has on 3 August 2007 dismissed the Application.
The Company understands that the Application was dismissed by the STB because the Application had been made by the vendors without full compliance with statutory requirements. Horizon Partners is currently considering the STB's decision and reserves all its rights, including its rights against the subsidiary proprietors of the Property who signed the collective sale agreement and the Sales Committee of the Property.
An inside source highlighted that the dismissal was done due to possible procedural errors. From the 3 main news sources, here are their 'sketchy' descriptions of these errors (all dated 4 Aug 07):-
CNA: "applicants failed to include certain documents"; "some papers were defective"
BT: "insufficient notices were posted and some documents were not filed"
ST: "a notice put up on July 11 last year saying that owners with 80.81 per cent of share values in Horizon Towers had signed the sale agreement. A sale needs 80 per cent consensus. But only 79 per cent had agreed to the sale at that time, lawyers said." (Incidentally, they did achieve 84% but I guess the point here was that on 11 July the notice was incorrect.)
Update: ST 8 Aug 2007 gave clearer details of the law firms and lawyers involved.
HPL - SC K Shanmugam and William Ong of Allen & Gledhill
Majority owners - SC Jimmy Yim of Drew & Napier, SC Chelva Rajah or Tan Rajah & Cheah.
Minority owners - Kannan Ramesh, Senior partner of Tan Kok Quan Partnership, Phillip Fong, Senior partner of Harry Ellias Partnership.
A company owning several units hired Dr SK Phang who enlisted SC Michael Hwang.
Agent for Horizon Towers remained, as far as I could tell, First Tree Properties Pte Ltd (BT 22 Aug 2006).
The interesting points are:-
- Again, STB emphasises the need for all applications to conform to the law in terms of procedures. Note that the merits of the application (done in good faith, method of distribution, financial loss) were not considered in these dismissal cases so far. It appears even seasoned law firms and enbloc agents may stumble over the legal protocols needed for enbloc sales. The moral of the story - make sure you adhere to the law. To the letter.
- For those who are against the sale, it means not just objecting on the grounds of lack of transparency/lack of good faith/poor distribution/financial loss, but documenting meticulously every single letter/event/meeting that has ever occurred with regards to the enbloc as well as taking minutes/recording the sessions. Such information may turn out to be very useful later on. It also means that people have to be brave to object to the sale of their homes (preferably as a collective group), and that means objecting on all fronts - not just on the enbloc sale but on the procedures that were done to begin, move and secure the sale. Some agents and law firms are being paid hundreds of thousands if not millions to sell your homes and by golly, why should they have it easy? :)
- Most CSAs/SPAs have indemnity clauses protecting SCs and majority owners from anything but acts of God (okay I exaggerate but you get the idea.. read your own CSA/SPA). Can Hotel Properties Ltd sue the SC/majority owners for procedural mishap?
- A deja-vu may occur again when the new amended enbloc legislature kicks in later this year. I've already seen one CSA with contract-out clauses, or clauses that attempt to bypass the new laws. Even a clause that compels majority owners to agree that an EOGM occurred to elect the SC (a new proposed amendment to the law) even when it didn't actually happen. What will be the consequences for all owners (majority/minority) when the law is changing and people (including lawyers) are caught in the middle, waiting to see what fixes/amendments need to be done to their enbloc process? In the meantime, can current CSAs be worded such that they bypass or circumvent the new laws? Surely this can't be the case?
Tags:
162 comments:
ST reported that technicality was 79% en bloc approval achieved only. If that is true, then it was unethical that the real estate agent sealed the deal based on false fact. Strata Title Board should go after that agent. Your view?
I'm against the mentality of "pointing the finger at someone" since the issue is NEVER that simple. Both agent and lawyers are responsible for ensuring that the signatures correspond to the 80% consensus needed. The lawyers need to verify each signature and witness them. The agents need to know that everything is in order before proceeding with the sale. Even the SC needs to be on their toes and not leave everything to the agents/lawyers (as is common practice).
Besides, STB is not in the practice of 'going after agents' much less censuring them.
For me, 2 points stand out - (1) the technicality and not the merit of the application was the reason for dismissal, (2) you do not need heavyweight lawyers to go through the documentation (at least I don't think so; a very obsessive-compulsive clerk may well do the trick!).
Of course the whole event is not over, not by a long shot. Owners will now want to attempt to sell at a higher price. HPL will want to sue the SC/agents/lawyers. Minority owners will have to worry about losing their homes again. And there's always the possibility that a repeal might occur.
I have been reading the progress of horizon tower and noticed the agency name was never reported. After reading your blog, then only i know who is the agent.
Since mandalay court & Grenville were successful on 2nd application to STB, maybe horizon tower will be successful on 2nd attempt ?
There is a possibility will be successful on 2nd attempt. Because like what Dr minority said incidentally is 84%. It's how are they going to retify the irregularities and whether the residents are willing to co-operate. Likelihood the residents will take this golden opportunity to sit back and don't do anything so that the due date will lapse and deal is off. They can now get double than what they were 1st promised.
I find a bit strange why the agency name was not reported when disputes happened ? The agency first tree properties currently is doing diary farm condo.
ST 5aug'07 : When STP threw out the deal, HPL issued a statement reserving its rights against majority owners who signed the collective sale agreement and the sale committee of the property. It did NOT say will sue the agent or lawyer. Agent name was not even mentioned.
If proper documentations were done right from the start and there is 84% agreeing to sell, there is no reason why it cannot pass the STB ( strata title board). Agent & lawyers are the one handling the procedures and paperworks, not the 199 condo owners. Sellers did not breach the contract. Their contract to sell was conditional on STB's approval. If buyer want to sue, he should sue the parties who is the effective cause of the case being rejected by STB. There shall be more discoveries to this case. We shall wait and see.
majority of the horizon tower owners ( who has change their mind not to sell but could not withdrew their signatures) should say a big thank you to that few minority owners who objected the sale. If based on the figure of 84%, minority owners had no case. STB board threw out the deal was due to application not complying with the law ( even if there is no objectors). However, because of the minority owners, this case was delayed til almost near to due date 11/08/07. I guess there is no time to rectify the technical issues.
To the anonymous dated 06 August 2007 01:04:-
The Horizon Towers case highlights the importance of minority owners and their need to be pro-active. In this case, if it wasn't for a minority owner who brought the objection on grounds of technicalities, I think STB wouldn't have bothered to investigate the matter from that angle.
The danger with technicalities, as past history has shown, is that it's only a delay; a second application can be made to STB once the matter has been rectified. However, it seems very unlikely a 2nd application will be made (given the sharp increase in RP in the area). Unless of course, Hotel Prop manages to pull a legal feat and require that the original application be honoured once rectifications are made.
that is why buyer issue a statement reserving its right against SC/majority owner. He wants to put pressures on owners to rectify the technicalities problem which may be cause by them on purpose ?? As long as owners can proof that they are 'clean' and really there is technical issue ( but not cause by them), the finger will be pointing towards agent/law firm who were the one doing the jobs.
Those who think this is a victory for Horizon Towers, think again. If the owners make a wrong move, they might lose everything and go bankrupt.
STB is the least of their concern. It's what's written in the CSA that should worry them most.
yup.. but just want to point out, its not just the CSA..
I'm sure there's a separate document/contract that was signed between the SC/agents which represent the majority owners and the buyers,i.e. HPL and co.
BT just reported that HPL wanna sue Horizon Tower Sellers for $800mil - $1bil..
way i see it, even if HPL dun win the case, it will definitely kill a 2nd attempt at enbloc.. dun think any developer/agent/lawfirm will wanna get involved until the hustle-bustle calms down and everything's more predictable..
Victory? maybe for the minority 16% who didnt sign the CSA..
Just wonder how will the majority sellers respond ? Take the chance and let HPL sue them ( which HPL not necessarily will win) in return of double sale price ? Come on, if HPL sue every sellers bankrupt, they will ask government for help. The usual singaporean style.
hello all, the fact that horizon owners already has a new firm ( rajah tan & cheah ) standby to receive lawyer letter from HPL said something, right ? They are prepare to fight. If not, they might as well stick to enbloc lawyer ( Drew & Napier) and agent -First tree properties. Why spend more money at last min if they want the deal to go through ?
I looked through a few CSAs and Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs). I'm not a lawyer so this is just logical reading at best. My understanding is that the SPA supercedes the CSA and it's the SPA that is binding between HPL and the majority SPs of Horizon Towers.
Oddly, some CSAs/SPAs do not include clauses that cover the eventuality that STB dismisses the case. However, almost all SPAs have a blanket clause that states categorically, any breach in contract, the purchaser (HPL) can claim against the SPs. I note that the lawyers in such cases are themselves protected from lawsuits :)
Ultimately, it's what's in the SPA that will be subject to rigorous legal examination, and if the SPA opens up a space for HPL to sue HT majority owners, then the majority owners have some serious consideration to do.
I have updated this particular blog post with the names of lawyers and law firms from today's ST 8 Aug 2007.
An interesting question: If the SC decides to extend the deadline by 4 mths to put in a new STB application as demanded by HPL, can the minority owners sue the SC/majority owners to claim for legal costs and lost profits?
This is quickly becoming a kitschy Tarantino movie where the characters are all pointing guns at each other, hurling threats, and waiting for the first person to trigger what will invariably be a bloody shootout.
ST 8aug'07 said horizon tower owners FEAR the lawsuit. Does that mean that they will grant the extension ? show over.
Dr minority, it's normal for S&P to have a clause that HPL can sue owners. BT 7aug'07 : A&G alleges the sellers are ' in clear breach of their obligation..to file a proper application to STB, etc ' Now, the question is sellers are represented by lawyer and agent. It's the lawyer/agt that should carry out the job. I agreed that seller has obligation BUT they have up till 11 aug'06 to fulfil their obligation to be cooperative with agt/lawyers. They have no obligation to extend the dateline.
Does anyone has any idea who will be the one authorise to apply for the extension of the dateline ? SC/ agent/ lawyers ? Is there any approval needed by majority sellers if their representing SC/agent/ lawyer go ahead to extend the date line ?
If approval is needed from the majority of sellers to extend timeline, then there shall be voting. As long as there is some percentage vote for no extension, then the timeline will be lapse. But who will dare to vote no ? Hey, HPL may sue individual sellers if they vote no ? Possible ? Then those who vote yes, can they say they will be free of lawsuit since they are consistent with what they pen down ?
ann, i don't think so. It's an enbloc sale. If the deal is off, buyer will sue the majority of sellers (as a whole). However, if individual seller sign with HPL, then it's a different story. Maybe can really nail down to individual sellers who said no to extension. It all depends on what the contract said.
so the method of voting must be fair. For those sellers who had duly signed their documents properly with proper documents attached should be segregated from those who did not. Since they have fulfilled their obligation, they should be ask whether they want to extend the dateline or not ? For those who did not fill in properly, sure they will vote for extension of dateline.
As long as sellers stay together as a whole, fight as a team. I guess there is nothing to fear. If majority of the sellers start to think for individual instead of a whole, then gone case.
Interesting topic but i guess the majority owners will give in eventually
thanks Dr minority for your blog. You always have interesting topics. CNA ( 10pm ) said majority owners most likely to be taken to court since the deadline ( 8 aug at 3pm ) to reply to HPL on extension has lapsed.
Hey, if everybody uses HPL's point to sue the vendors, then all the buyers are always the winners. Eg. i buy a property but subject to URA/HDB's approval. If authorities do not approval, i sue the seller that he is obliged to file a proper documentations so that authority can approve. And seller must appeal and file until approved ?? In another word, seller is obliged to grant me extension of the sales contract because the fault is seller. Hello, then, no ending.
AFAIK...
STB did not approve the application because it did not fully comply with statutory requirements. Horizon Towers consenting owners were advised throughout the collective sale on compliance with legal and statutory requirements by their lawyers Drew and Napier. According to online internet sources, it would appear that the Senior Consultant to Drew and Napier, also happens to be the Chairman of HPL, one of the joint partners of Horizon Partners now threatening to sue Horizon Towers consenting owners over alleged breach of contract.
To anonymous dated 09 August 2007 00:54,
I believe Drew & Napier was later discharged from their duties and the owners changed to Rajah Tan and Cheah. And while the owners might have been made aware of compliance (standard practice, honestly), the technicality error was not made by owners but by the agents and/or the lawyers when they did not ensure that the documentation were in order.
To meng dated 08 August 2007 23:30
Absolutely. There's 2 separate situation here - breach of obligations by the seller to conduct the sale properly, and loss of profits. If HPL is suing for breach of obligations, than they can't sue for the large sum they're asking for, based on lost profits.
If it's based on loss of profits, this is where it gets dangerous. Let's say an owner objects to the sale due to financial loss (perfectly allowable case to dismiss the sale). STB dismisses the sale. Can the developer then sue for loss of profits, since they ARE effectively losing that plot of land. In other words, ANY STB dismissal opens the sellers wide open to legal danger if HPL's test case is successful.
i think in most enbloc agreeement;
sellers must ensure, when their estate is put up for sale, everything is in compliance with the law, and can the question of STB approval should not even surface. (some sellers see this STB approval as a wild card, i beg to differ)
buyers must ensure, when they agree to the transaction, that they can pay up according to schedule.
i think the above is fair right? or not? maybe sellers are special in some way, esp so since most interested(biased?) ppl here are home owners themselves..
Dr minority, i agreed with you. If HPL win the case, URA/HDB/high court will be busier than ever. Buyers will sue & sue sellers citing the HPL case. If they cannot win, pls call in the media to broadcast on why HPL can win but not them ? Then, everyone very busy.
Drminority:
I don't believe that Drew & Napier have been discharged from their duties as it was reported in the news that at the STB hearing they were acting as the seller's representative. I believe that Rajah Tan & Cheah were engaged by Horizon Towers consenting owners to protect their interest, just as Allen & Gledhill were engaged by HPL to protect HPL's interest in this case.
>>>>According to online internet sources, it would appear that the Senior Consultant to Drew and Napier, also happens to be the Chairman of HPL, one of the joint partners of Horizon Partners now threatening to sue Horizon Towers consenting owners over alleged breach of contract. <<<<<
09 August 2007 00:54
Hello, how true is this news ? Drew & Napier Consultants = Chairman of HPL ???? What is his name & where u get the internet source from ? I thought Ong beng seng control HPL. Your source is accurate or not ?
Anyone wondered why buyers/buyers lawyers/agent allowed the time expiry to the whole process? I always thought it was a buyer beware thing. It just seems to me that the SPA was not tight enough in terms of what could go wrong and the dissenting owners probably managed to find a loophole to jam the whole thing in their favour.
there are too many loopholes that can jam up the en-bloc process, thats why the onus is on the sellers to ensure that the sale can withstand the scruntiny of the STB, as well as any legal/statutory obligations; as is put in most water-tight CSAs that i've come across.
therefore, if the sale fails this scruntiny, the sellers must be the ones at fault, and this is the reason why HPL can and should sue.
not necessarily that sellers are at fault. Hello, sellers are non-legal person, so they engage law firm/agent to do the job. HPL should sue law firm/agent. The fact that they sue sellers is to lock them in 1st, in case they sell to others. Moreover, if what one of the anonymous said is true - the senior counsel of seller's lawyer is chairman if HPL, then can majoirity sellers now sue buyer and law firm for conflict of interest ? Aiyo, either i sue you or you sue me. Everyone has the right to sue, only on what ground you sue.
hey, if u said sellers must ensure no loopholes, then can i said if i buy a software and there's bug -eg. sometimes hang. Then, i sue the software company because they must ensure no bug before they sell. Come one lah, even Bill gate knows there is no software with no bug, ok ? By the time the software is 100% free of bug, this software is outdated.
Actually I agree with meng that the onus should not be on the seller to ensure the process completes. In reality, all buyers should do their homework first and because they are the ones paying - all the more they should take control to make sure the deal is concluded. In this case, I am surprised that technicalities appears to be something out of the hands of the buyers - just wondering how the lawyers for the buyers did up the agreement.
ah meng, u think go market buy vegetables ah?
even sell vegetable, ppl eat oreidi and die, also will kenna jialat jialat one leh..
If the sellers are not held accountable when it is their duty to ensure compliance with STBs statutory requirements, what can the buyers do?
Does this mean that every enbloc seller for the past 5 mths, who are not happy with their compensation sum can do the same and have their minority cite irregularities at STB hearings and have the sales agreement reneged?
So, Minton Rise minorities can pull the same stunt on 20-22 Aug? And the majority can help them since prices now are much higher?
If "that technicalities appears to be something out of the hands of the buyers";
Then how will "how the lawyers for the buyers did up the agreement" affect the STB decision to rule on technicalities?
Inadvertently, you have said that the technicalities is something that only the sellers can control. And with control, comes responsibility and duty.
If I was the buyer and really want the deal - I will make sure I can get to control everything to close the deal but push the responsibility of not being able to do it, if that does happen to others.
meng:
Just do an internet search and you will find that Joseph Grimberg is the Chairman of HPL as well as Senior Consultant to Drew & Napier.
from HPL website:
Board of Directors
Chairman
Joseph Grimberg
Managing Director
Ong Beng Seng
Members
Christopher Lim Tien Lock
Gordon Seow Li Ming
Michael S. Dobbs-Higginson
Arthur Tan Keng Hock
Leslie Mah Kim Loong
David Fu Kuo Chen
From Drew & Napier website:
Chief Executive Officer
Davinder Singh
Senior Counsel
Senior Consultant
Joseph Grimberg
Senior Counsel
Managing Directors
Dispute Resolution:
Jimmy Yim
Senior Counsel
Banking and Corporate:
David Ang
Intellectual Property:
Morris John
Property:
Chua Bee Lan
Yes, i agreed it was the sellers who applied to STB, so sellers is in control and maybe they are under suspect that they can file improper documents that cause STB to throw out ? However, you must know majority of owners are represented by law firm/agent. The correct sue-ing process should be : HPL sue law firm/agent. Then agent/law firm sue majority owners ( provided seller's representatives know they themselves are not at fault). Correct ?
wow, very messy leh. Is there any procedure to follow on who should sue who 1st ? The important thing here is every party must get themselves a lawyer.
Can i say if the technicality problem cite by STB is due to conflict of interests, then no case. Because if it's paperwork, you still can point finger here and there or even point finger at legal clerk ? But conflict of interests how to solve ? headaches....aiya, anyway, not my problem.
Btw, is conflict of interest also counted as a point for not meeting STB statutory requirement ? I am a lay man, i don't know a lot of thing. pls enlighten
Hence, HPL has not sued the sellers YET; only the intent to sue them IF they do not right the technicalities, which is the sellers duty in the first place.
So, at this point in time, are the sellers obliged to right the technicalities? I would think so.
Can HPL sue them if they refuse to right the technicaliteis at this point in time? I would think so too.
"ST reported that technicality was 79% en bloc approval achieved only. If that is true, then it was unethical that the real estate agent sealed the deal based on false fact. Strata Title Board should go after that agent. Your view? "
if 79% was achieved only, then the CSA is invalid and the contract is null and void. caveat emptor; HPL should also verify the legality of the CSA before entering legal relations with the vendors.
haha.. alot of ppl spreading the rumour online that only 79% majority when its 84%..
i wonder if its a calculated attempt at garnering public support lol
"meng said...
Btw, is conflict of interest also counted as a point for not meeting STB statutory requirement ? I am a lay man, i don't know a lot of thing. pls enlighten"
yes, conflict of interest is deemed to be a point for not meeting STB statutory requirements. because the CSA and S&P agreement must be made in good faith.
I see. Technicality issue means sellers must fixed. So, assuming conflict of interest is one of technicality issue, who fixed ? If cannot fix, can sellers sue buyer because u agree to buy but u cannot fix ? I want you to fix because i already fix my paperwork problem. Possible ? I am only trying to learn something from this case so that in case one day someone sue me, i know what is the procedure ?
"haha.. alot of ppl spreading the rumour online that only 79% majority when its 84%..
i wonder if its a calculated attempt at garnering public support lol"
now it is 84%. but when it was first publicly announced last july that the 80% majority was achieved, only 79% was achieved in fact.
now it's not 79% or 84%, we have advance to technicality issues which include conflict of interest. U are very outdated leh. I am a layman, still i am faster than you. Maybe i can be scholar if i study hard last time ?
I believe the "technicalities" most likely do not originate from the buyer. Unless, HPL and co. secretly does not wish to buy Horizon Towers and just want to make a big splashy exit.
later joseph ask his friend davinder join the game den the sellers sure habis...
"meng said...
now it's not 79% or 84%, we have advance to technicality issues which include conflict of interest. U are very outdated leh. I am a layman, still i am faster than you. Maybe i can be scholar if i study hard last time ?"
ah..but 79% is a fundamental non-compliance with statutory requirements (so called technicality) where 80% is required to officially commence the collective sale process. you need to study harder lah lol.
"later joseph ask his friend davinder join the game den the sellers sure habis... "
why habis? sellers bring D&N as third party to the suit, then he finds that he is suing himself. lol.
hello, still i said i am cleverer than u even i don't study hard last time. Of course i understand 80% is min requirement. Now, if conflict of interest is ONE of the point of not meeting STB requirement, even you have 90%, you also cannnot passed. So, the conflict of interest is a very important point. Understand. Ah meng never study hard also have logical thinking. Don't tell me you study and you cannot figure out ?
"I believe the "technicalities" most likely do not originate from the buyer. Unless, HPL and co. secretly does not wish to buy Horizon Towers and just want to make a big splashy exit. "
If property prices had fallen instead of rising, i'm sure HPL would be more than happy to accept this "technicality error" and will not sue HT for breach of contract. now of course they can always claim the moral high ground. haha.
be it 79%-80% during their first failed attempt to get the minimum $500mil offer, or the 84% on the second attempt, it makes no difference to HPL..
HPL already gave them 3 options that can possibly resolve the problem.. now the ball is in the majority sellers court whether or not they are willing to resolve the techincalities problem..
>>>ah..but 79% is a fundamental non-compliance with statutory requirements (so called technicality) where 80% is required to officially commence the collective sale process. you need to study harder lah lol.
You saw my reply ? I only failed english but score As in most subject. So, cannot be lawyer. Lawyer's brain must be fast+good english.
"meng said...
hello, still i said i am cleverer than u even i don't study hard last time. Of course i understand 80% is min requirement. Now, if conflict of interest is ONE of the point of not meeting STB requirement, even you have 90%, you also cannnot passed. So, the conflict of interest is a very important point. Understand. Ah meng never study hard also have logical thinking. Don't tell me you study and you cannot figure out ? "
haha...yes you are absolutely right. STB can throw out an application if there is conflict of interest even if there is 99% majority consent. you are definitely smarter than i.
"If property prices had fallen instead of rising, i'm sure HPL would be more than happy to accept this "technicality error" and will not sue HT for breach of contract. now of course they can always claim the moral high ground. haha. "
If property prices crash? HPL and co will liquidate the $2 company and declare bankruptcy. They will lose just the deposit. What moral high ground?
STB can do anything they want, but the Court of Appeal can always over-rule them.
Anyone doubt that HPL will fight all the way there for $800mil-$1bil?
>>>haha...yes you are absolutely right. STB can throw out an application if there is conflict of interest even if there is 99% majority consent. you are definitely smarter than i.
I am joking with you that i am smarter than u. No hard feeling, ok ?
"If property prices crash? HPL and co will liquidate the $2 company and declare bankruptcy. They will lose just the deposit. What moral high ground? "
HPL spokesman Christopher Lim said previously that if the reverse happened (i.e. prices crash), HPL would still honour the contract no matter what. that moral high ground.
"STB can do anything they want, but the Court of Appeal can always over-rule them.
Anyone doubt that HPL will fight all the way there for $800mil-$1bil?"
STB, High Court and Court of Appeal can't do anything they want. they must all follow the law.
nono wrong liao.. its follow somebody's INTERPRETATION of the law..
thats why we have the judge on the high seat, and not a law book..
>>> HPL spokesman Christopher Lim said previously that if the reverse happened (i.e. prices crash), HPL would still honour the contract no matter what. that moral high ground.
09 August 2007 16:18
Hello, say only. If i say i love and will give you my life. If accident happen and i only want your kidney but not your entire life, will u give me, darling ?
"HPL spokesman Christopher Lim said previously that if the reverse happened (i.e. prices crash), HPL would still honour the contract no matter what. that moral high ground."
property crashes materalise in many degrees.. but the term "No matter what", is really big leh.. i can never fill those shoes..
even if aliens take over the planet tomorrow, world wide property/liquidity collapse, financial institutions all close down, HPL can still honor the contract? i suppose HPL has got a huge stack of $450mil stashed in their HQ?
Why are the majority owners of Horizon Towers afraid of HPL's potential lawsuit?
If, and when, HPL decides to proceed with legal proceedings, the majority's lawyers (Tan Rajah & Cheah) must have surely advised them that they can counter-sue Drew & Napier for profesisonal negligence?
Drew & Napier, and not the majrotiy, should be held responsible for the technical errors that caused the STB application to be dismissed.
HPL's chairman is Joseph Grimberg who, 'coincidentally', is also the ex- Senior Partner and current Senior Consultant of Drew & Napier. Assuming the majority are 'properly advised' by counsel and they decide to bring in Drew & Napier as a third party to the proceedings, I have serious doubts as to whether HPL will proceed to litigate.
If HPL does decide to take this matter further, Drew & Napier will be forced to defend not only themselves, but also the interests of the majority. Having the best litigation firm in Singapore on your side and fighting the case for you for free can't possibly be a bad thing, can it?
HPL is simply trying to scare the majority into extending the 11 August deadline. The majority should call HPL's bluff - stand up for your rights and be confident in the fact that you do not have the obligation to extend the longstop date.
>>> I believe the "technicalities" most likely do not originate from the buyer. Unless, HPL and co. secretly does not wish to buy Horizon Towers and just want to make a big splashy exit.
09 August 2007 15:58
In the beginning, technicalities maybe cause by sellers/ sellers lawfirm/ agent. But now, if conflict of interest also one of technicality problem, then it could be the buyer problem. Now, if want to sue also problem. Question is : who should be the one checking is there any conflict of interest before sealing the deal ?
Lawyers being lawyers, esp so for D&N, I won't be surprised if the contract/agreement indemnifies them.
And then what? back to square one, sellers going to get it from HPL if they don't make right the problems.
haha.. if its D&N who drew up the agreement, then you better read and re-read before you bochap HPL as bluff..
some anonymous never study the case & anyhow give comments. Hello, pls understand the case & think before give comments. If not, waste my time reading. Ah meng never study hard also read properly and give logical comments.
"Lawyers being lawyers, esp so for D&N, I won't be surprised if the contract/agreement indemnifies them.
And then what? back to square one, sellers going to get it from HPL if they don't make right the problems."
No such thing. then there would be no professional responsibility at all. That's why lawyers take up Professional Indemnity Insurance.
"In the beginning, technicalities maybe cause by sellers/ sellers lawfirm/ agent. But now, if conflict of interest also one of technicality problem, then it could be the buyer problem. Now, if want to sue also problem. Question is : who should be the one checking is there any conflict of interest before sealing the deal ? "
ah meng, i like your logical questions :)
the onus is on the party who knows best about the potential conflict of interest. in this case, D&N should have declared a potential conflict of interest as soon as HPL appeared on the scene as a purchaser, and if necessary, discharge themselves as vendor's solicitors to avoid any conflict of interest.
"haha.. if its D&N who drew up the agreement, then you better read and re-read before you bochap HPL as bluff.."
As Shanmugam said, HPL has to be seen to do something. after all, they are accountable to their shareholders and to their foreign investment partners.
>>>> ah meng, i like your logical questions :)
the onus is on the party who knows best about the potential conflict of interest. in this case, D&N should have declared a potential conflict of interest as soon as HPL appeared on the scene as a purchaser, and if necessary, discharge themselves as vendor's solicitors to avoid any conflict of interest. <<<<
Aiya, i only failed english, other subjects very good, ok ? So, question now becomes has the law firm done that ? If yes, at which stage ? Hey, we are not inside horizon tower and yet we seems to guess everything & it sounds logical. Maybe they are also like us debating inside the condo.
"ah meng, i like your logical questions :)
the onus is on the party who knows best about the potential conflict of interest. in this case, D&N should have declared a potential conflict of interest as soon as HPL appeared on the scene as a purchaser, and if necessary, discharge themselves as vendor's solicitors to avoid any conflict of interest. "
I see. You mean they didn't?
"As Shanmugam said, HPL has to be seen to do something. after all, they are accountable to their shareholders and to their foreign investment partners. "
I tend to see his statement as trying to justify suing home owners. There are many home owners in Singapore, and it wouldn't do them any good to have public backlash if the PR isnt handled properly.
>>>ah meng, u think go market buy vegetables ah?
even sell vegetable, ppl eat oreidi and die, also will kenna jialat jialat one leh.. <<<<
09 August 2007 14:45
Hey, ppl eat vegatables die ? 1st, you must prove that why ppl eat the vegetables die, ok ? Maybe he got choked with vegetables, then die. Or he also eat other things together with vegatables & cause the death ? Or he just simply had heart attack while eating vegetables. So, it's never a smiple cause. If u only nail down to vegetables, then can i say all people eat vegetables will die ?? Think again.
"I see. You mean they didn't? "
Not sure. Nothing about this was reported in the press.
If vegetables incident is also not simple, how can the $500mils deal be simple ? Understand ? Don't anyhow tell the vegetable seller u very jialat, people eat your vegetables die. If vegetable seller only fail english but got logical thinking like me, then i will sue whoever who said my vegetables cause death on the gound it cause damages to me. Correct ?
"Aiya, i only failed english, other subjects very good, ok ? So, question now becomes has the law firm done that ? If yes, at which stage ? Hey, we are not inside horizon tower and yet we seems to guess everything & it sounds logical. Maybe they are also like us debating inside the condo."
Not sure whether the law firm has done that and at which stage. What is factual is that they were still acting as vendor's lawyers when drawing up the sales and purchase agreement with HPL so they must have decided that there was no conflict of interest at that time.
Wow... 85 comments and counting. I'm getting lost in the arguments here too.
Meng - just to clarify, I think you wrote somewhere that "conflict of interest" (in particular the fact that one of D&N's staff is also HPL's staff) is considered an STB dismissal. That's not true. What the law states clearly in this matter falls under the issue of whether the transaction was done in "good faith" - "what is the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors" (LT(S)A 84A.9.a.iii). So if Grimberg's son is an owner at HT, there might be a serious problem.
The relationship between the lawyers (D&N) and HPL will not factor into any STB discussion. It is up to the SC who hired the lawyers to determine any legal recourse when the conflict of interest arises. But that is separate from the STB application and decision.
Dr minority, btw what's HT ? I did not know about the grimbeg case until someone brought up. So, i asked is there any conflict of interest, blah, blah, blah ? You mean if D&N's senior counsel is chariman of HPL, there is no problem. Only if it's his son who is the owner ( HT ? ), then it's a problem ? what has it got to do with his son ?
if teh son is teh vegetable seller, got big problem!
>>> if teh son is teh vegetable seller, got big problem! <<<<
Oh, i see. Wow, that means HT is Horizon tower. So complicated. That's why i cannot be lawyer because i don't understand the english statements.
Did the HT sellers also understand what they sign ? Even i failed english but i subsequently made it to university and yet i don't understand the clauses. How about those HT owners ? All very good in english ??
wait a min, i have a question. Does that mean if the son is inside, then it cannot pass the STB's requirement ? My guessing is no son is there. Because how can father sue the son ? He must have know his son is not there. Correct ? Anyway, i learnt that law is law - pls read and understand thoroughly black & white before you sign. But sometimes, only when it happen, then only understand what the statements mean.
"wait a min, i have a question. Does that mean if the son is inside, then it cannot pass the STB's requirement ? My guessing is no son is there. Because how can father sue the son ? He must have know his son is not there. Correct ? Anyway, i learnt that law is law - pls read and understand thoroughly black & white before you sign. But sometimes, only when it happen, then only understand what the statements mean. "
Family members have been suing each other in several publicised cases recently.
The 'relationship' clause in the Land Titles (STrata) Act was included mainly because there's the worry that the transaction may not be transparent and open.
Let's say Ah Tan's Construction Pte Ltd is the winning buyer for sellers of Luxury KimKim Yaya Condo. But Ah Tan Jr owns a unit in this LKY condo. Minority owners can argue that Ah Tan Jr gave insider information to his father about reserve price, who is likely to object and on what grounds, or even suan the SC to accept his father's offer with all sorts of special deals only for the SC. That's why the law requires that the transaction be done "at arm's length", and there isn't any relationship between the buyer and the seller. Or if there is, it MUST be declared and it's up to STB to decide if the relationship can jeopardise the sale.
And yes you hit the right problem too - Most owners will not understand what they're signing - the CSA. Even I struggle with the legal documents and have to read a paragraph several times, largely because I am not trained in law. And how often is the CSA translated into layman's english? Only once at the presentation, and then only if the owner asks the lawyer clause by clause to explain (which most owners don't bother, they trust the SC or they just want to sell).
Dr minority, your english is so good in my eyes and yet you have to struggle to read the english statements in CSA ? I suggest for future enbloc sales, pls draft the contract in 4 languages. I scored A in my mandarin, sure i understand better what i signed. Even government voting also 4 languages, why can't enbloc use 4 languages since HT maybe the one & only home for some sellers.
But before we go further on what can be done for future enbloc, i wish HT sellers have some good solution if they are not willing to extend the timeline. If not, they have no choice but to give in. Give in at this stage is a bit wasted because they could have change the enbloc scenerio. In the past, no one has make it. Developers keep making new price record, why can't enbloc seller make some record ?
>>>.......That's why the law requires that the transaction be done "at arm's length", and there isn't any relationship between the buyer and the seller. Or if there is, it MUST be declared and it's up to STB to decide if the relationship can jeopardise the sale......<<<
what if buyer has link with seller's representative that can influence the seller's decision ? Is this not counted ? Only blood relationship ( father-son, mother-son, etc) is counted ? Of course what is written in black & white is important. Does that black & white said only that kind of link is counted ?
>>>> what if buyer has link with seller's representative that can influence the seller's decision ? Is this not counted ? Only blood relationship ( father-son, mother-son, etc) is counted ? Of course what is written in black & white is important. Does that black & white said only that kind of link is counted ? <<<<<
hello, if lawyer said it means this, then it means this. If u want to ask does that means that or that ? Pls go to court. If you can argue your point well, then that statement suppose to mean this becomes means that if u win the court case. Understand ? Ah meng learn fast. hehe...
>>>what if buyer has link with seller's representative that can influence the seller's decision ? Is this not counted ? Only blood relationship ( father-son, mother-son, etc) is counted ? Of course what is written in black & white is important. Does that black & white said only that kind of link is counted ?<<<
I think the law allows only for blood relations, although I cannot confirm it. It would be the most obvious definition and one that can be easily determined. The Purchaser has to declare in a statutory declaration, under oath, that "to the best of my information and knowledge, the directors of the company (purchaser) are not related to any of the owners of any of the strata units in the development"
But let me give you another more concrete example where arms length is not maintained, and it'll be up to minority owners to test if this counts as bad faith or not:-
Owner in LKY condo is a real estate agent as well as member of the SC. He knows a developer interested in the estate and pushes for a private treaty between the developer and the owners. Majority owners accept the treaty and sale is agreed. Because the relationship is one of friendship, does it count? Is it open and fair? That is up to STB to decide.
"what if buyer has link with seller's representative that can influence the seller's decision ? Is this not counted ? Only blood relationship ( father-son, mother-son, etc) is counted ? Of course what is written in black & white is important. Does that black & white said only that kind of link is counted ? "
can be quite a grey area here. that's why STB looks at it on a case by case basis.
"Owner in LKY condo is a real estate agent as well as member of the SC. He knows a developer interested in the estate and pushes for a private treaty between the developer and the owners. Majority owners accept the treaty and sale is agreed. Because the relationship is one of friendship, does it count? Is it open and fair? That is up to STB to decide."
that's why it's a grey area. when does a relationship become strong enough to be construed as "bad faith"? when does conflict of interest take place? Not easy for the STB to decide sometimes.
That's why must fight in high court. The high court will be final decision. You can't ask high court why this is grey, that is not ? There must be an end to it. If STB is not the end, then have to go high court. Unless there is a rule to say if STB say no, it means no. There shall be no question asked.
"hello, if lawyer said it means this, then it means this. If u want to ask does that means that or that ? Pls go to court. If you can argue your point well, then that statement suppose to mean this becomes means that if u win the court case. Understand ? Ah meng learn fast. hehe... "
lawyers can be wrong sometimes too ok! understand? :)
"That's why must fight in high court. The high court will be final decision. You can't ask high court why this is grey, that is not ? There must be an end to it. If STB is not the end, then have to go high court. Unless there is a rule to say if STB say no, it means no. There shall be no question asked."
The final decision is in the Court of Appeal, if either party can be bothered to go all the way.
>>> lawyers can be wrong sometimes too ok! understand? :) <<<<
Agreed. The concern is : Is there a need to prove lawyer is wrong unless that point is important. If that point is important, then have to go high court & prove
so, what HT sellers should do now is look at what point HPL sue them ? Then, focus & work on that point. If buyer said sellers must sell to them because u sign papers. Yes, agreed but STB rejected. Now, buyer said you have the obligations to fill up proper docs and file in new application. Now, is this point in the contract ? Buyer can said this is understood. So, the queestion is does sellers has the obligation to re-apply ? Even if yes, does they have obligation to extend dateline ? If all these also come with it, then die lah. What else more come with it ??
Obligations is a general word. What is the obligations of an employee ? Carry out the jobs employers said ?? What else ? There is a code of conducts given to employees when they signed the employment's letter. So, that form the obligations. Is there any black & white to state the obligations of sellers ? If no, the obligations have to be testify in court ? Is that correct ?
If employer said you wash toilet but the job you applied is clerk. Then, you can tell employor my job scope is written in black & white and this is not within my job scope and my obligations. If i do for you, it's called favour. And favour is done at my own willingness. Correct ? Aiya, i really don't know does law really carry this way ?
If employer said you wash toilet but the job you applied is clerk. >>> Then, you can tell employor my job scope is written in black & white and this is not within my job scope and my obligations. If i do for you, it's called favour. And favour is done at my own willingness. Correct ? Aiya, i really don't know does law really carry this way ? <<<
Meng, sounds logical but don't forget employor can sack you. haha...so, better do n don't argue so much.
"Yes, agreed but STB rejected. Now, buyer said you have the obligations to fill up proper docs and file in new application. Now, is this point in the contract ? Buyer can said this is understood. So, the queestion is does sellers has the obligation to re-apply ? Even if yes, does they have obligation to extend dateline ? If all these also come with it, then die lah. What else more come with it ?? "
see.. many ppl still have the misconception that the STB is some kind of wild beast, whose ruling is from the heavens and nobody can know how it will decide..
is that the case? arent the rules all written clear for the sellers to see?
i think there is no way the sellers can hide.. can run, but cannot hide la..
If STB does not carry some weight, then why have it in the 1st place. We must respect STB's decision since there is a rule that said subject to STB's approval.
>>>> The organisation called the Strata Titles Boards is presided over by a President and Deputy President(s) appointed by the Minister. The President and Deputy President(s) are legally qualified persons. The President and Deputy President(s) are assisted by the Registrar whose full title is Registrar of the Strata Titles Boards and who has the power to hear interlocutory applications.<<<<
So STB is STB. They don't anyhow throw out case.
"If STB does not carry some weight, then why have it in the 1st place. We must respect STB's decision since there is a rule that said subject to STB's approval."
we must also respect the right of every citizen to query decisions made by STB or the courts. all decisions can be appealed against. except of course the decision of the court of appeal.
can someone explain to me what is the basis of HPL's threatened lawsuit against HT majority?
according to news reports, STB rejected the application because it "did not fully comply with statutory requirements". i.e. it did not fully comply with the Land Titles (Strata) Act, Part VA, Collective Sale of Property (the relevant Singapore Statute).
Now, Mr Shanmugam considers such an application to be "improper". Therefore, a "proper" application must logically be one that fully complies with the relevant Singapore Statute. Such an application must necessarily be approved by the Strata Titles Board, because it complies fully with all their statutory requirements.
In other words, Mr Shanmugam is demanding that HT majority must GUARANTEE approval from STB, otherwise be sued for a huge sum for "lost profits".
Unless the sale agreement expressly contains the condition that HT majority must GUARANTEE approval from STB, i fail to see how HPL has any grounds to sue HT majority.
>>>>>.....Unless the sale agreement expressly contains the condition that HT majority must GUARANTEE approval from STB, i fail to see how HPL has any grounds to sue HT majority.....<<<
Hello, that's what i am saying, Buyer want seller to fulfill their obligation by submitting fresh application. This in another word is like what you said : GUARANTEE must passed. Even take aeroplane also airline won't dare to guarantee no accident.
>>>> Hello, that's what i am saying, Buyer want seller to fulfill their obligation by submitting fresh application. This in another word is like what you said : GUARANTEE must passed. Even take aeroplane also airline won't dare to guarantee no accident. <<<<
Hey meng, don't you know even airline does not guarantee. But if accident happen, people still can sue them, depending on what ground. So, must testify in court
"Hello, that's what i am saying, Buyer want seller to fulfill their obligation by submitting fresh application. This in another word is like what you said : GUARANTEE must passed. Even take aeroplane also airline won't dare to guarantee no accident."
obligation to submit a "proper" application, i.e. one that complies FULLY with statutory requirements. Then GUARANTEED approval from STB lor. wah, HPL can ask for the sun, moon and stars man. pls give me a break!
>> Anonymous said...can someone explain to me what is the basis of HPL's threatened lawsuit against HT majority?<<
I have replied to you over at condosingapore :)
http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11556&postcount=289
In past history, STB seldom threw out cases. If it's a norm that usually 1st application won't pass, then majority sellers has the obligation to file 2nd one. Or rather it's a practice to file 2nd application. Now it's not the case.
>>>>we must also respect the right of every citizen to query decisions made by STB or the courts. all decisions can be appealed against. except of course the decision of the court of appeal.<<<<
Yes, agreed. So, now buyer take sellers to court because he has the right to query decision. And that means sellers don't need to file fresh application since buyer now want to query STB's decision. Hello, this is NOT the case. Now, buyer want seller to appeal to court to over-write STB decision. It's like husband tell wife to cook dinner because he said wife's obligation include that. Understand. Husband does not want to cook himself.
>>>>.....Now, buyer want seller to appeal to court to over-write STB decision. It's like husband tell wife to cook dinner because he said wife's obligation include that. Understand. Husband does not want to cook himself....<<<<
Meng, you forgot to say food must to the taste of husband.
>>>> CNA ( 8/8/07) : Lawyer Shriniwas Rai, who represents some of the majority owners in favour of the sale, said a fourth option is to file an Originating Summons with the High Court to decide if the sales and purchase agreement is still valid — even while HPL is suing the sellers. <<<<
Hey, this is a good idea. Btw, HPL gave 3 options : 1) extend sale dateline&apply fresh option 2)appeal to court over STB's decision 3) be sued. If Sales & purchase is no longer valid, all these 3 are also not valid. Question is : The time is too short to do anything now. Question is why sales committe/representative filed the case at STB at the time so near to sale deadline ?
>>>> Hey, this is a good idea. Btw, HPL gave 3 options : 1) extend sale dateline&apply fresh option 2)appeal to court over STB's decision 3) be sued. If Sales & purchase is no longer valid, all these 3 are also not valid. Question is : The time is too short to do anything now. Question is why sales committe/representative filed the case at STB at the time so near to sale deadline <<<<
Lawyer not even sure whether the sale contract is valid or not after STB disapproved. That means if HT sellers extend the sales contract, they are actually making it 100% valid. Correct ?
>>>>.....Question is why sales committe/representative filed the case at STB at the time so near to sale deadline <<<<
Oh, this question should be directed to SC/First tree properties/D&N. Maybe at 1st they thought they will sure get approval ?
" Lawyer not even sure whether the sale contract is valid or not after STB disapproved. That means if HT sellers extend the sales contract, they are actually making it 100% valid. Correct ? "
No, it just gives HT more time to decide what to do next. STB approval is still required and is one of the conditions that must be fulfilled for the sale to go through.
" Yes, agreed. So, now buyer take sellers to court because he has the right to query decision. And that means sellers don't need to file fresh application since buyer now want to query STB's decision. Hello, this is NOT the case. Now, buyer want seller to appeal to court to over-write STB decision. It's like husband tell wife to cook dinner because he said wife's obligation include that. Understand. Husband does not want to cook himself. "
it's like husband saying to wife, "your cooking is not good enough". according to our marriage contract, your obligation is to cook me restaurant standard food all the time. otherwise i can divorce you and sue you for my lost opportunities in fine dining.
>>>>No, it just gives HT more time to decide what to do next. STB approval is still required and is one of the conditions that must be fulfilled for the sale to go through. <<<<
So, for sales contract to be valid, it must get STB approval ? If no STB approval and Sales contract dateline up, then contract no longer valid. Correct ? Then, very clear cut.
>>>>it's like husband saying to wife, "your cooking is not good enough". according to our marriage contract, your obligation is to cook me restaurant standard food all the time. otherwise i can divorce you and sue you for my lost opportunities in fine dining.<<<<
In the 1st place, is cooking this word inside marriage contract ? Marriage is no contract, just certificate. If relationship turn sours, anything also can sue lah.
>>>In the 1st place, is cooking this word inside marriage contract ? Marriage is no contract, just certificate. If relationship turn sours, anything also can sue lah. <<<<
Yes, because wife did sign something. So, that signing something means something which many don't know ? So, up to the unhappy party to sue. That's why there is a term called plantiff, another term called defendant.
if u sign a paper, it will called contract. That contract comes with rights and obligations. So, HT does not only have the obligations to fillful, they also have the rights. But just one side. Now the situation is : rights vs obligations. Simple ?
rights vs obligations ? sounds simple but not easy. Which comes 1st ? Rights or obligations ?
Wife has the obligation to fulfill husband's request but also has the right to reject OR wife has the right to reject husband's request but has the obligation to fulfill his request. Sounds the same ?
wow, no ending..
"So, for sales contract to be valid, it must get STB approval ? If no STB approval and Sales contract dateline up, then contract no longer valid. Correct ? Then, very clear cut."
yes, correct. what is not so clear cut is whether HPL can demand that HT extends the deadline. AFAIK the deadline can only be extended by HT's own choosing, or by mutual consent, not by threat or demand. if HT accedes to HPL's demand, then the deadline extension may not be contractually valid because it may have been granted under duress.
Heard that agent did not collect commission from seller. He collect from buyer. Is that true ? any HT sellers to verify ?
"Heard that agent did not collect commission from seller. He collect from buyer. Is that true ? any HT sellers to verify ?"
True.
ST 9aug 2007 said lawyer & agent could also be in the firing line as owners can counter-sue...
If it's true that agent does not get commission from seller, will he be clear of this ? Because he is doing free for sellers.
"ST 9aug 2007 said lawyer & agent could also be in the firing line as owners can counter-sue...
If it's true that agent does not get commission from seller, will he be clear of this ? Because he is doing free for sellers."
so the agent is being paid by the buyer, they owe more loyalty to the buyer? don't they have the obligation to act professionally and to advise the sellers all the proper procedures to take?
its so silly to think of STB approval as some kind of tikam tikam.. like most of you are putting it..
its not la... all black and white and written on paper.. how to pass STB approval..
thats why most CSAs got clause that sellers cannot do anything to jeopardise the sale as developers know they can do many things to jeopardise their sale via STB..
hence, if HT owners dont i) extend, ii) appeal to overrule STB, then they are jeopardising the sale..
HPL will then sue the HT owners..
>>>>....thats why most CSAs got clause that sellers cannot do anything to jeopardise the sale as developers know they can do many things to jeopardise their sale via STB..
hence, if HT owners dont i) extend, ii) appeal to overrule STB, then they are jeopardising the sale..
HPL will then sue the HT owners.. <<<<
If that is the way you put it, then once sellers signed the CSA, it shall be called confirmed deal, huh ?
>>>>....thats why most CSAs got clause that sellers cannot do anything to jeopardise the sale as developers know they can do many things to jeopardise their sale via STB..
hence, if HT owners dont i) extend, ii) appeal to overrule STB, then they are jeopardising the sale..
HPL will then sue the HT owners.. <<<<
Wow, like that might as well don't need agent, SC, lawyers (from a start )to ensure residents follow rulesm procedures, signing, meetings, etc...They are there to ensure everything is good before they apply to STB. Now, cannot pass STB, then suspect resident's
do something to jeopardise the deal ???
"If that is the way you put it, then once sellers signed the CSA, it shall be called confirmed deal, huh ? "
sellers CANNOT jeopardise the deal..
MINORITIES can.. base on bad faith la, incurr loss, mortage cannot redeem.. etc..
now is technicality leh.. so is seller's submission got probelm.. so is seller jeopardise.. so tio sues
"Wow, like that might as well don't need agent, SC, lawyers (from a start )to ensure residents follow rulesm procedures, signing, meetings, etc...They are there to ensure everything is good before they apply to STB. Now, cannot pass STB, then suspect resident's
do something to jeopardise the deal ??? "
the contract is binding between 84% sellers and buyers.. so buyer sue 84% seller..
if 84% seller not happy with the work done by their own agent/lawyer, then 84% seller can counter-sue agent/lawyer for damages..
agent i dunno might kenna jiarat jiarat.. but most lawyers put a clause to indemnify themselves from unexpected claims..
"Heard that agent did not collect commission from seller. He collect from buyer. Is that true ? any HT sellers to verify ?"
as far as i know, under common law, if somebody give u free service/stuff, something wrong happen, you cannot claim somebody's accountability
>>> as far as i know, under common law, if somebody give u free service/stuff, something wrong happen, you cannot claim somebody's accountability <<<<
How about free service with an intention attached. Then, can claim or not ? Go to court & proof his intention ? Then, this case very messy leh. Buyer sue sellers, sellers sue agt/law firm. But law firm have indemity to protect themselves and agent do free service. So, how ? Sellers die ? Hey, you believe there is justice ? i believe.
If assuming sellers lose court case and all the 84% make bankrupt because cannot pay up even after selling house, you think the issue closed ? Think again.
the 79% technical non-compliance can never be fixed now, unless they can travel back in time and get the remaining 1% consent.
so, any re-application to STB or High Court appeal is bound to fail to reverse STB's decision to reject the application in the first place. the 80% required by law in the first place can never be rectified now.
was the 79% non-compliance deliberate? no, because this was at the beginning of the collective sale process, long before HPL even entered the picture as a purchaser.
so why is HPL now asking for HT to do the impossible. just to pocket an easy $1b on a "technicality"?
"But law firm have indemity to protect themselves and agent do free service. So, how ? Sellers die ? "
ehmmm.. wats that smell?
"the 79% technical non-compliance can never be fixed now, unless they can travel back in time and get the remaining 1% consent."
HPL isnt interested in the 79%.. 79% cant do anything..
HPL is only interested in the 84% that they signed the S&PA with..
84% can obtaina new CSA with all the kinks ironed out and get the STB approval
hey, just watch the chanel 5 news. It said the HT owners now asking buyer to give them another 2 more weeks so that they can conduct the meeting to vote whether to extend dateline or not ?
Wow, then must be fair in voting. All vote must be SECRET. If not, someone will leak info. U never know who ? There is someone with free service, someone maybe busybody, etc....so, Voting must be SECRET.
Yes, voting must be secret. There is a way to do it. HT tower has so many lawyers, sure they can come out a way that voting is secret. Vote now & open card now is the best.
If voting is not secret, then that few who vote no to extend dateline will get pressurised that all the liability will be passed to them ? That's why follow government is the best - voting is secret. Government is the best role model.
agent do free service ? Do you know how long is the enbloc ? By the way, how much he get from buyer ?
vote now, open now not enough. Must destroy the vote after that. And everyone is the witness. Then, ask lawyer to draft a letter to say majority owners now agree/do not agree to extend dateline. Witness by lawyer/agent/sc/owners. How about that ? workable ? Need fine tune leh....but concept ok ?
"HPL isnt interested in the 79%.. 79% cant do anything..
HPL is only interested in the 84% that they signed the S&PA with..
84% can obtaina new CSA with all the kinks ironed out and get the STB approval"
the kinks are not in the CSA. the kinks are in the statutory procedures over a span of a year (even long before HPL came into the picture) which have not been properly carried out. and which can never be fully rectified now.
" hey, just watch the chanel 5 news. It said the HT owners now asking buyer to give them another 2 more weeks so that they can conduct the meeting to vote whether to extend dateline or not ?
Wow, then must be fair in voting. All vote must be SECRET. If not, someone will leak info. U never know who ? There is someone with free service, someone maybe busybody, etc....so, Voting must be SECRET. "
everyone will vote to extend the deadline, and avoid being sued.
i have the same view -everyone will vote for extension of dateline. The loser is now minority owners.
"i have the same view -everyone will vote for extension of dateline. The loser is now minority owners. "
minority owners just have to make the same objections to STB, and if necessary the high court, and the STB application will be rejected once again.
>>> minority owners just have to make the same objections to STB, and if necessary the high court, and the STB application will be rejected once again. <<<
This time, they will make sure paperwork is 'proper'. But honestly speaking, $820psf vs Grangeford $1810psf is too huge the difference in one or two months. No wonder agent collect commission from buyer because it's a good buy ? Sellers didn't know they are selling cheap ?
Grangeford has jackie chan, horizon tower does not have. hehe...If come to sue-ing, who dare to sue jackie chan ? He has kung-fu and lots of fans, you know ?
>>> ST June 12 : HK star among 11 owners who have yet to agree to Grangeford sale.
STAR’S CONDO : Jackie Chan owns a 1,755 sq ft unit at GrangefordApartments.
HONG KONG movie superstar Jackie Chan is among a group of home owners who could stand in the way of what is shaping up as Singapore’s priciest
collective sale in per sq ft (psf) terms. <<<<
See, even Hong kong movie star knows market better. They asked for $2000psf and got $1810psf. He did not follow the majority & said yes. He is in Hong Kong yet he knows what price to sell. Here ? Listen to what their enbloc agent said ?
Post a Comment