PDA

View Full Version : NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query



mr funny
17-03-08, 11:02
NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

By Teo Xuanwei, TODAY | Posted: 17 March 2008 1032 hrs


SINGAPORE: Fresh revelations about the relationship between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and purchaser Ankerite have surfaced, adding a new twist to the Gillman Heights condominium collective sale brouhaha.

Acting for a group of minority owners fighting to scupper the Strata Titles Board's (STB) approval of the S$548-million sale of the property to developer CapitaLand, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang revealed in submissions to the High Court last Friday that condo majority owner NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite sometime around July 5 last year — about five months after the en bloc sale was inked.

This fact, which was not available to the STB before it approved the deal, meant the Board was unable to make a "fully-informed judgment".

CapitaLand had reportedly announced on May 15 last year that HPL Orchard Place and "two private funds" had bought 50 per cent of its subsidiary Ankerite.

The court learnt on Friday that the NUS was one of the two unidentified private funds and had acquired a 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite. The NUS owns 303 units, or about half, of the property.

The 22 owners are also citing other grounds to oppose the sale of the sprawling 607-unit Alexandra Road estate. They revolve around how the former HUDC estate's age was calculated, the way the sale process was conducted and how the sale price was arrived at.

One of the issues was whether Gillman Heights had acquired consent from 90 per cent of the owners for an en bloc sale if it were less than 10 years old.

Although it was completed in 1984, the condo only underwent privatisation in 1995 and acquired the Temporary Occupation Permits or Certificates of Strata Completion (CSC) in 2002. At the time, the NUS had agreed to the en bloc sale on June 22, 2002, the agreeing signatories made up 82.43 per cent only.

However, Senior Counsel Quek Mong Hwa, who is representing the majority owners, said en bloc sales of three privatised HUDC estates — Amberville, Waterfront View and Farrer Court — had been successfully completed before the Gillman Heights saga.

Two other similar estates, Minton Rise and Tampines Court, were also awaiting approval from the STB.

In his rebuttal, Mr Hwang said these estates did not have Temporary Occupation Permits or Certificates of Strata Completion issued by the Building and Construction Authority at the time the en bloc sales were completed.

On Sunday, some of the 22 minority owners told TODAY they were fighting to overturn the deal because they "love their homes". The hearing continues tomorrow. - TODAY/ar

Unregistered
17-03-08, 11:38
I am shocked that NUS has done such a thing.

If NUS had wanted to do so, at least they should reveal this front end rather than have to be found out first.

Good job Michael Hwang.

Unregistered
17-03-08, 12:19
This is reality! NUS take it as a business deal, an investment.

They didn't care how it will affect genuine home owners!

May justice be prevailed.

Unregistered
17-03-08, 15:55
If indeed the report is true, then a grave injustice had been done to the owners. NUS should have made full disclosure of their interest right in the beginning. Wonder what happened. Surely an institution like NUS need not behave like greedy developers ?

Unregistered
17-03-08, 17:01
I find it quite disgraceful that an educational insutuition which markets itself as a world class educator be caught involved in such compromising business acts. Such a total conflict of interest!!

I wish the owners of Gillman Heights all the best and may you preserve your homes!! and beat the unscrupulous in the dirty commerical deals!!

Unregistered
17-03-08, 17:11
I find it quite disgraceful that an educational insutuition which markets itself as a world class educator be caught involved in such compromising business acts. Such a total conflict of interest!!

I wish the owners of Gillman Heights all the best and may you preserve your homes!! and beat the unscrupulous in the dirty commerical deals!!


You see the en bloc culture has bad influence to all sectors, including educational institution. Is is time that the educationists start to re-education themselves the very basis of value in life, where forturnately money is not the priority.

Let's value our home and protect it from being robbed.

Unregistered
17-03-08, 18:27
Truth is stranger than fiction!

Unregistered
17-03-08, 18:38
Is this some sort of secret deal that NUS or Capitaland need to keep it under cover?

I believe this revelation will have a negative effect on Singapore as an education hub.

Unregistered
17-03-08, 19:26
An enbloc novel cannot be immaculate. It has to have lots of twist. It makes the sale more interesting. So Wousy!

Unregistered
17-03-08, 20:23
ENBLOC may "come n go." But the ENBLOC BS "stays."

Unregistered
17-03-08, 20:57
Would be interesting to see what the "secret deal" is. Can't wait for the next episode.

Unregistered
17-03-08, 21:49
University School fee hike continue !

Unregistered
17-03-08, 22:50
So much ado about nothing. NUS bought into Ankerite after the en bloc sale. There is nothing wrong with that.

If it comes to the crux, they should have been stopped from the purchase of Ankerite, not from selling Gillman Heights. The chronology is important.

From owning half of the property to owning 15% of the purchaser, there is nothing illegal about the sales transaction. Eg. if an enbloc developer offers new units in exchange, the owners are allowed to take the exchange. Everything is above board.

Please say something serious instead of just throwing mud at NUS.

Unregistered
17-03-08, 23:10
Even if the idea of buying into the Buyer "suddenly" arose after the decision to sell, NUS still has to explain why they did not disclose this before the STB.

And was the " exchange" scheme offered to all sellers?

Unregistered
17-03-08, 23:44
Question is why NUS want to buy into Ankerite - a company set up for the enbloc purchase ?

Unregistered
18-03-08, 00:10
Hypothetically, if I own 80% of the estate and I agree to sell the estate at $350psf. Subsequently, I invest in the buyer. Do I have a duty to declare to STB that I am now one of the investor? (If I take away the votes of NUS, the percentage of owners who agree to the sale is only 60%)

Where can the minority owners, people who only own a single property and very likely live in it their whole life ensure that the deal was done in good faith.

I do think that we should question not just the justification of the “Buy” by NUS but also the “Sale” in the case.

Unregistered
18-03-08, 00:54
So many questions. Where are the answers ?

Unregistered
18-03-08, 08:15
So many questions. Where are the answers ?
The answer is 80% of the vote had been achieved to sell. Then is a done deal.

Unregistered
18-03-08, 10:11
The question is whether NUS was already in discussion with Capital Land even before the sale was done.

Unregistered
18-03-08, 11:04
The question is whether NUS was already in discussion with Capital Land even before the sale was done.

God knows.

Unregistered
18-03-08, 11:55
The question is whether NUS was already in discussion with Capital Land even before the sale was done.
One has to bear in mind that NUS did not start the en bloc process. They were the passive majority. And if they found an opportunity to reinvest their proceeds, they are well within their rights.

Unregistered
18-03-08, 15:33
Did I just read the previous comment say: “They are well within their rights!!!” Do these rights include the right as a subsidiary proprietor to have a relationship with the purchaser whereby they become the purchaser?
You said: “So much ado about nothing. NUS bought into Ankerite after the en bloc sale. There is nothing wrong with that.”
. . . “From owning half of the property to owning 15% of the purchaser, there is nothing illegal about the sales transaction.”
There is most definitely something illegal in question here not "nothing illegal" as the Land Title (Strata) (Amendment) Bill No. 32/2007 clearly says (9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (2) – (a) if the Board is not satisfied that – (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: . . . (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors;

Comments about one’s rights and what is legal or illegal cannot be a matter of mere opinion but a matter of Law. Unless we are suggesting we have the right to break the Law. Certainly not! Let the High Court decide since there is clearly a question here as to the relationship of the purchaser to the majority subsidiary proprietor in question.

Unregistered
18-03-08, 15:41
It was said previously: “So much ado about nothing. NUS bought into Ankerite after the en bloc sale. There is nothing wrong with that.”
Let me highlight, GILLMAN HEIGHTS IS NOT SOLD as the SALE IS NOT COMPLETED yet. That is why there is a completion date given on March 20th, 2008. Consequently, whatever NUS has done before 20/3/08 is done before the sale not after the enbloc sale. There is everything wrong with NUS buying into Ankertite before the enbloc sale is completed!!!!

Unregistered
18-03-08, 16:22
Does anybody knows the history of how NUS acquired 300+ units of Gillman Heights from the Govt.? and lots of units were unoccupied for a long time???

Unregistered
18-03-08, 16:35
Anybody knows what happened at the appeals today?

Unregistered
18-03-08, 18:41
Anybody knows what happened at the appeals today?

Nothing much. The summaries were given. The judge reserved judgment. Finished at lunchtime.
Some nice oratory by Huang and the lawyer for the appealing majority.

Unregistered
18-03-08, 18:45
So have they changed the completion date or is it still 20th March 08? When is judgment going to be given? Any idea?

Unregistered
18-03-08, 21:24
So have they changed the completion date or is it still 20th March 08? When is judgment going to be given? Any idea?

Decision date not known. There will be a stay on completion, of course.

Unregistered
19-03-08, 01:15
For all your hue and cry, there is no lack of good faith on NUS's part. The S&P was done a good five months before their puchase of Ankerite. And all that needed was STB approval.

Unregistered
19-03-08, 09:31
Sound like the judge dunno what to do next.


Ha Ha.

Unregistered
19-03-08, 11:30
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/243681.asp

for infomation for those interested.

Unregistered
19-03-08, 12:05
One has to think what the lawmakers had in mind when they came up with the 80% and 90% ruling in connection to the age of the estate. Looking at that, any subsequent upgrading of the compound has little bearing on the age. Since the occupants moved in over 20 years ago, TOP or its equivalent must have been issued then. The CSC is not normally used for calculating the age of estates.

Unregistered
19-03-08, 13:02
i agree with you.

as commented by one judge, if the estate were to build a new toilet and obtain a CSC, the age of the estate is again reverted to 99 years. then all the estate will do this.

Unregistered
19-03-08, 13:07
Sound like the judge dunno what to do next.


Ha Ha.
Too many high-end cooks make the colourful ABC alphabet hot soup!!!!!!!!

Unregistered
20-03-08, 11:10
Enkerite, subidiary of Capland bought Gillman Heights in Feb 2007.
When and why NUS buy into Enkerite? A 15% ownership was not disclosed to STB, why???
When Capland sold 50% stake of Enkerite, announcement was made that HPL is a party, together with Qatar investment bought 10% stake and another party not disclosed....why?

When is NUS interested in Enkerite and plan such interesting scheme without the knowledge of the owners of Gillman heights.?

There were many questions which NUS should address now that this issue has been slowly opened to the public.

Unregistered
20-03-08, 11:46
Enkerite, subidiary of Capland bought Gillman Heights in Feb 2007.
When and why NUS buy into Enkerite? A 15% ownership was not disclosed to STB, why???
When Capland sold 50% stake of Enkerite, announcement was made that HPL is a party, together with Qatar investment bought 10% stake and another party not disclosed....why?

When is NUS interested in Enkerite and plan such interesting scheme without the knowledge of the owners of Gillman heights.?

There were many questions which NUS should address now that this issue has been slowly opened to the public.
Its a disgrace to the STB and the transacted lawyers, when personal lawyers are needed to dig the dirt out from the "so called elite!"

Unregistered
20-03-08, 12:41
I agree it is a disgrace to STB and L&L. They claim they didn’t know about NUS buying 15% shares of the buyer Ankerite, but it is their responsibility to know. L&L are being paid a huge fee to know these things and make sure that the Law is followed. For them to say they didn’t know means that they are saying they are either 1. incompetent or 2. deliberately hiding the information from the STB. Ankerite’s lawyer was at the STB hearing yet he didn’t feel it necessary to inform them – surely he knew and was deliberately hiding the information.
So what does the Law say? In Parliament the discussion on “The LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL” states: Point 13 “Let me now elaborate on the role of the Board . . . is to determine that the proposed sale is bona fide and an arm’s length transaction . . . The Board will look at . . . the relationship of the purchaser to the owners, to ensure that there is no collusion. If the Board decides that the transaction is bona fide and an arms length transaction, the sale will proceed.”
So now they know there was collusion but what is being done? Is the STB going to uphold the Law now? They should! Now L&L know. Are they going to request for another sitting of the STB? If they respect the Law they should. Why should only the minority care about the Law being followed? Is the STB and L&L by their silence and inaction agreeing to the Law on collective sale being publicly broken?

Unregistered
20-03-08, 13:05
Buyer asked for 6 weeks extension. No completion today as they have to wait for judge's decision.

Unregistered
20-03-08, 13:07
It is a shame that the sales committe have not inform us what us happening, and we get to know about it from the papers and the forum.

Unregistered
20-03-08, 13:24
It is a shame that the sales committe have not inform us what us happening, and we get to know about it from the papers and the forum.
Their excuse was too many units to send letters around. Even the sales committee have their own conflicts.

Unregistered
20-03-08, 14:15
Their excuse was too many units to send letters around. Even the sales committee have their own conflicts.

In other word, they are failing their duties as the sales committee.

They always said you can post questions by sending email to them, BUT, the problem is they never bother to reply.

They treated this enbloc as their own business, not the majority owners business.

Wonder why NUS never complain or they get constant update from the SC?

Unregistered
20-03-08, 14:38
I think the sales committee is in big trouble with their wives for selling the property so cheaply.

Probably they are all sleeping in the hall now and no access to the PC.

Unregistered
20-03-08, 18:09
One has to think what the lawmakers had in mind when they came up with the 80% and 90% ruling in connection to the age of the estate. Looking at that, any subsequent upgrading of the compound has little bearing on the age. Since the occupants moved in over 20 years ago, TOP or its equivalent must have been issued then. The CSC is not normally used for calculating the age of estates.

A law is a law, one have to follow it and not try to interpret it. if it is not clear, then it have to be back to parliament to have it amended..

Unregistered
20-03-08, 21:27
One has to bear in mind that NUS did not start the en bloc process. They were the passive majority. And if they found an opportunity to reinvest their proceeds, they are well within their rights.

Yes, NUS had all along been passive in all concerns of GH. They would put in as one vote but when the enbloc was out for voting,they declared full votes based on the number of units they owned. Ironically they claimed that they will take the cue from the majority but acted in the opposite.
They owned 303 units out of the 608. This is not a stab but it went in an twist into the flesh.

Unregistered
21-03-08, 08:23
Enbloc has been seeing the doctor lately. It has been feeling weak for months now.

Enbloc-'the doctor thinks I may not live for long. We need to hang on to each other tight the whole night through'

Fiance-'I need a good night's sleep. I still need to wake up early. You may not'(dead)

Unregistered
21-03-08, 10:15
To all GH minority who claim they actually Love GH as a pretext to salvage what is left of their miserly enboc scraps,

Stop the nitpicking and honor the deal.

The whole world can sense your hypocrisy.

Registered
21-03-08, 10:46
#46, Please note that minority owners are those who did not sign any agreement to sell but got themselves all the shits (created by majority) and have to pay just to protect the home they already owned.

Unregistered
21-03-08, 10:55
Understand NUS owned about 50% but they are not a resident there.
Why they need to bother as long they make money in their books.
Acquire for less than $300k each, book value may be $0 now.
Gain on disposal. $880K x 303 units = $266.64 million

Registered
21-03-08, 11:26
#32 & #33, FYI, it does not depends on the age of Gillman Heights.

The 80% or 90% minimum requisite depends on whether more or less than 10 years have passed since the issued of latest TOP or latest CSC.

The fact that Gillman Heights land lease remains unchanged at 1/7/1985, even from the commenced of conversion from HUDC to privatise estate in 1996 or on completion of privatisation by obtaining the CSC in 2002 or even if anyone built your toilet now!

Who is saying "resetting the lease when you built the toilet"?

Unregistered
21-03-08, 13:21
properties are in a big jam. enbloc are in jams. human are in jams. welcome to the jamming world.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 00:54
Yes, NUS had all along been passive in all concerns of GH. They would put in as one vote but when the enbloc was out for voting,they declared full votes based on the number of units they owned. Ironically they claimed that they will take the cue from the majority but acted in the opposite.
They owned 303 units out of the 608. This is not a stab but it went in an twist into the flesh.
Please check your facts. I think NUS did follow the majority.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 00:56
A law is a law, one have to follow it and not try to interpret it. if it is not clear, then it have to be back to parliament to have it amended..
There is something called the spirit of the law.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 05:24
#46, Please note that minority owners are those who did not sign any agreement to sell but got themselves all the shits (created by majority) and have to pay just to protect the home they already owned.

Hope to remind you that the "sh*t" you referred to would be 900+k for each household. Enough to make many green with envy already.

That's not bad sh*t considering it's at least twice the price of a swanky HDB 5-roomer, not bad at all.

And if anyone think that the sh*t ain't enough, GH minority can top up the deficit for the majority instead of trying to "top" up the lease now. Are they trying to re-enact the scene of a well-known Sci-fi movie in which time actually freezes? If so, NUS scientists should debunk that myth for them ASAP.

Anyway, I wish GH minority all the best because "anti-ageing" laws for buildings would be kicking in real soon if they fail to win this battle.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 12:30
In other word, they are failing their duties as the sales committee.

They always said you can post questions by sending email to them, BUT, the problem is they never bother to reply.

They treated this enbloc as their own business, not the majority owners business.

Wonder why NUS never complain or they get constant update from the SC?
This enbloc looks as if a tornado went through it. All will still survive, because arses are covered.(CYA) Standard operating procedure. (SOP)

Unregistered
22-03-08, 14:42
Why should NUS resort to purchase Enkerite? Why is this not disclosed to Sales Committee and L & L ???
Is there something to hide?? There has been rumours long ago which I do not believe......but now proven true. I am shock.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 15:07
Why should NUS resort to purchase Enkerite? Why is this not disclosed to Sales Committee and L & L ???
Is there something to hide?? There has been rumours long ago which I do not believe......but now proven true. I am shock.

Very hard to prove in court of law that NUS acted in bad faith...it is a commercial decision to sell GH. It is also a commercial decision to purchase Enkerite.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 15:29
Very hard to prove in court of law that NUS acted in bad faith...it is a commercial decision to sell GH. It is also a commercial decision to purchase Enkerite.
enbloc like one nobody in the rong.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 16:06
Heard the judgement will be out on Monday???

Unregistered
22-03-08, 21:41
There is absolutely nothing wrong with NUS re-investing their gains. Any GH owner is free to do the same - buy shares of Enkerite in their IPO. Given that NUS is a publicly funded institution, it would be a dereliction of duties if they didn't do something wise with their money.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 21:46
To #49: No one can occupy a building without TOP. So obviously the "age" of the building has everything to do with TOP, except in cases where the building has been left uncompleted and dilapidated.

In case you still don't understand, the fact that occupants moved in over 20 years ago means that TOP has been issued over 20 years ago.

Unregistered
22-03-08, 23:34
20 years ago Gillman Heights is a public housing estate, not a private estate.
FYI, the law make reference to the latest TOP or latest CSC, not earliest TOP/CSC.

Unregistered
23-03-08, 00:31
Heard the judgement will be out on Monday???
Are you sure? Will you be there?

Unregistered
24-03-08, 13:35
any news regarding the judge decision?

maybe announce with horizon garden one time.

Unregistered
24-03-08, 16:06
Are you sure? Will you be there?

Look out for it in The Horizon Times tomorrow

Unregistered
24-03-08, 16:49
Look out for it in The Horizon Times tomorrow
OK Lar. Forum is better

Unregistered
24-03-08, 19:37
Some people were too confident to outsmart the minority............?

Unregistered
25-03-08, 16:43
If NUS has the right to purchase Enkerite, why don't disclosed this interest until someone discover this??

Maybe the Sales Committee are informed??

Or perhaps the lawyer advise them not as not to or not necessary to inform the owners??

Failure to disclose such interest I believe is not acceptable practice. The owners need to know now.....

Unregistered
25-03-08, 19:36
Actual fact it is "NUS buyout the rest of owners in Gillman Heights" ..... and ... to redevelop it for profit??

Unregistered
25-03-08, 19:47
Actual fact it is "NUS buyout the rest of owners in Gillman Heights" ..... and ... to redevelop it for profit??
Standard practice for loving our homes??

Unregistered
26-03-08, 13:08
Closing one book on a volatile chapter in enbloc. Watch out for the sordid dramas on "Horizon Towers?"

mr funny
27-03-08, 01:49
March 26, 2008

Should NUS be involved in properties?


AS A National University of Singapore (NUS) alumnus who receives regular invitations to donate to the National University of Singapore Endowment Fund, I was flabbergasted to learn from the media that NUS has a 15 per cent stake in Ankerite, the purchaser of Gillman Heights Condominium.

Does NUS have a clear investment policy for its funds and, if so, does that investment policy allow it to buy such a significant stake in a private company involved in property development?

Property development is a potentially risky activity given the volatility of property prices, so has NUS considered the risks? Or does the investment involve an immaterial financial commitment or has NUS established that this investment is low-risk?

There is another issue involved. As an educational institution, NUS has to behave even more responsibly than other corporations. Even though it is trying to raise as much funds as possible, it should not do so at the risk of damage to its reputation.

I am surprised that NUS will allow itself to be placed in a position of actual, or at least perceived, conflict of interest, by allowing itself to be involved both as a shareholder of the buyer of Gillman Heights, and as a seller of a majority of the units in the estate.

Even if the sale of Gillman Heights and the purchase of a stake in Ankerite are unconnected, there seems to be a lack of judgement in purchasing a stake in Ankerite. Reasonable people are likely to make a connection between the two, as Ankerite is an unknown company to those who are not involved in the Gillman Heights sale.

Jennifer Teo Hwee Ling (Ms)

Unregistered
27-03-08, 06:23
interesting read! the plot thickens....any ruling so far

Unregistered
27-03-08, 08:24
letter from Lee n Lee, says the judge may give a written judgement.

it will not be so soon.

guess maybe between 1-3 months.

Unregistered
27-03-08, 10:35
From the LT(S)A:

(9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (1) —

(a) if the Board is satisfied that —

(i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors:

(A) the sale price for the lots and the common property in the strata title plan;

(B) the method of distributing the proceeds of sale; and

(C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors;

I wonder if (C) counts, since technically NUS is an SP and also purchaser?

Unregistered
27-03-08, 12:01
A very loud ugly woman walk in the supermarket with 2 ugly kids in tow screaming obscenities. The door greeter says," nice children, are they twins?" The ugly woman snarls, "Of course not, you dickhead!" "Absolutely" replies the greeter, "I can't believe anyone would shag you twice!"

Unregistered
27-03-08, 21:18
For all your hue and cry, there is no lack of good faith on NUS's part. The S&P was done a good five months before their puchase of Ankerite. And all that needed was STB approval.

NUS has a working relationship with Capital Land for sometimenow. Ankerite is a subsidairy of Capital Land and yet on the STRATA Board application they declared that Ankerite has no prior relationship with NUS. Surely half truth is no truth!!

Unregistered
28-03-08, 13:04
i agree with you.

as commented by one judge, if the estate were to build a new toilet and obtain a CSC, the age of the estate is again reverted to 99 years. then all the estate will do this.


I like your sense of humour.

So I am going to build a new toilet in my estate and make sure you can get a new CSC for me, otherwise don't spout nonsense, I don't mind about not reverting the lease back to 99 years.

Unregistered
28-03-08, 13:13
20 years ago Gillman Heights is a public housing estate, not a private estate.
FYI, the law make reference to the latest TOP or latest CSC, not earliest TOP/CSC.

I fully agree with you.

In the first place, Gillman Heights, like many private apartment blocks, were built without the strata title certificate in their planning and as long as they were not strata titled, they do not come under the purview of the LTSA, so no talk about en bloc sale.

It is like a guy getting married at the age of 40 and to qualify for a divorce, he must be married for at least three years, at age 43. He cannot claim that he is 41 years old (assuming he wants a divorce the following year) and therefore old enough to break a marriage!

Ipso facto, the age for an en bloc sale should be determined from the date the strata title was issued because prior to that date, the estate did not come under the scope of the LTSA.

Unregistered
28-03-08, 21:22
this website have many discussions on the same subject
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=134459&highlight=&sid=f6397c9f486460915400ee30c684943b

GH Humour.
30-03-08, 13:25
Support for ENBLOC?- When ENBLOC got fired, you were there to support me. When ENBLOC failed, you were there. When ENBLOC got shot, you were by my side. When ENBLOC started failing, you are still by my side. "You know what?"


'WHAT DEAR, I THINK YOU'RE BAD LUCK'
'I,M OFF'

Unregistered
31-03-08, 18:43
NUS has a working relationship with Capital Land for sometimenow. Ankerite is a subsidairy of Capital Land and yet on the STRATA Board application they declared that Ankerite has no prior relationship with NUS. Surely half truth is no truth!!

NUS bought some unit of Varsity park from Capital Land .

mr funny
02-04-08, 13:44
April 2, 2008

NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal


WE REFER to the letter, 'Should NUS be involved in properties?' by Ms Jennifer Teo Hwee Ling (March 26).

The management of the National University of Singapore Endowment Fund (NUS Fund) is governed by an endowment investment policy that is laid down by the Investment Committee (IVC) of the university's Board of Trustees. The investment policy is to preserve and enhance the NUS Fund's real (that is, inflation-adjusted) purchasing power and to provide for the long-term priority needs of the university. This is done through a diversified investment programme, which is in line with the best practices adopted by endowments of leading universities around the world. Property and property-related investments have formed part of this portfolio since 2001.

Of the 607 units in Gillman Heights, the university owns 303 units. Although the university had been approached on a number of occasions by some of the owners of the other units to consider selling en bloc, the university did not do so. It was only after the majority of the owners of the other 304 units had voted in favour of the collective sale in 2006 that the university decided to go with the majority decision. The collective sale agreement was signed on June 23, 2006.

To maintain impartiality, the university decided not to be represented in the collective sales committee. The Sale and Purchase Agreement for the collective sale to Ankerite was signed on Feb 5 last year.

The decision to invest in Ankerite was made in May last year following a careful deliberation by the IVC and is in line with our investment policy. The other shareholders in Ankerite are reputable property developers and a private fund.

The possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also considered before the university acquired its 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite. The university was satisfied that its investment in Ankerite does not give rise to a conflict of interest for a number of reasons. The agreement for the collective sale was concluded before the opportunity to invest in Ankerite arose. The university was already committed to supporting the sale of its units pursuant to the agreement negotiated by the collective sales committee, which did not include university representatives. The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners who signed the agreement and were seeking the best sale price for their units.

We thank Ms Teo for sharing her concerns and for giving us an opportunity to clarify this matter.

Nicholas Kong
Chief Investment Officer
National University of Singapore

Unregistered
02-04-08, 15:21
April 2, 2008

NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal


WE REFER to the letter, 'Should NUS be involved in properties?' by Ms Jennifer Teo Hwee Ling (March 26).

The management of the National University of Singapore Endowment Fund (NUS Fund) is governed by an endowment investment policy that is laid down by the Investment Committee (IVC) of the university's Board of Trustees. The investment policy is to preserve and enhance the NUS Fund's real (that is, inflation-adjusted) purchasing power and to provide for the long-term priority needs of the university. This is done through a diversified investment programme, which is in line with the best practices adopted by endowments of leading universities around the world. Property and property-related investments have formed part of this portfolio since 2001.

Of the 607 units in Gillman Heights, the university owns 303 units. Although the university had been approached on a number of occasions by some of the owners of the other units to consider selling en bloc, the university did not do so. It was only after the majority of the owners of the other 304 units had voted in favour of the collective sale in 2006 that the university decided to go with the majority decision. The collective sale agreement was signed on June 23, 2006.

To maintain impartiality, the university decided not to be represented in the collective sales committee. The Sale and Purchase Agreement for the collective sale to Ankerite was signed on Feb 5 last year.

The decision to invest in Ankerite was made in May last year following a careful deliberation by the IVC and is in line with our investment policy. The other shareholders in Ankerite are reputable property developers and a private fund.

The possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also considered before the university acquired its 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite. The university was satisfied that its investment in Ankerite does not give rise to a conflict of interest for a number of reasons. The agreement for the collective sale was concluded before the opportunity to invest in Ankerite arose. The university was already committed to supporting the sale of its units pursuant to the agreement negotiated by the collective sales committee, which did not include university representatives. The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners who signed the agreement and were seeking the best sale price for their units.

We thank Ms Teo for sharing her concerns and for giving us an opportunity to clarify this matter.

Nicholas Kong
Chief Investment Officer
National University of Singapore


BUT....how come NUS does not disclose it? Public only found out not until the lawyer represent the minority owners disclose the connections in court? Of course, some may argue that it is not important or not necessary to disclose it, but it will lead to unnecessary speculation.

Unregistered
02-04-08, 17:43
Like it or not, in life, for every drunk driver who got caught, how many actually got away? Wrong time, wrong place, wrong people? That is what is all about!

Unregistered
02-04-08, 21:07
CAPITALAND LIMITED
(Incorporated in the Republic of Singapore)
Company Registration No.: 198900036N
ANNOUNCEMENT
_____________________________________________________________________
INTERVENTION IN HIGH COURT APPEAL HEARING
REGARDING EN-BLOC PURCHASE OF GILLMAN HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM
___________________________________________________________________________________
We refer to the press releases made by CapitaLand Limited (“CapitaLand”) on 6
February 2007 and 21 December 2007 relating to the proposed acquisition of Gillman
Heights Condominium (“Gillman Heights”) by CapitaLand through its indirectly-owned
associated company, Ankerite Pte. Ltd. (“Ankerite”). The shareholders of Ankerite are
CapitaLand’s indirect wholly-owned subsidiary CRL Realty Pte Ltd (50%), with the
balance shareholding held by HPL Orchard Place Pte Ltd and two private funds.
On 17 January 2008, The Straits Times reported that a group of minority owners at
Gillman Heights had filed an appeal to the Singapore High Court on 16 January 2008
against the order granted by the Strata Titles Board approving the above-said en-bloc
sale of Gillman Heights.
On 5 February 2008, upon consultation with and through its lawyers, Ankerite filed
applications to seek the leave of the Singapore High Court to intervene in the said
appeal proceedings. Leave to intervene was granted by the Singapore High Court
today, 15 February 2008. As a consequence, Ankerite was added as a party to the
abovementioned appeal proceedings.
Further details will be announced as and when appropriate.
By Order of the Board
Low Sai Choy
Company Secretary
15 February 2008

who are the two pte funds ? one of them is NUS ?

Unregistered
03-04-08, 01:06
NUS can invest in properties and whatever it likes. But the following questions remain in this deal (some not mentioned in the letter by the writer, Nicholas Kong who was appointed director of Ankerite on 5 July 2007).
1) How did NUS get the opportunity to invest in Ankerite (an obscure company) if there is no relationship between it and Capitaland?
2) Why did the original announcement by Capitaland about the deal disclosed HPL as a buyer but hid the identity of NUS?
3) Why did Capitaland sell the stake to NUS at cost given that it is supposed to maximise profits to its shareholders, unless Capitaland felt it has bought a "lemon", which is unlikely given that it was only 3 months after the purchase and it has a smart CEO?
Yes, the fact that the purchase of Ankerite took place 3 months later may be used to justify no conflict of interest. But if I want to avoid perception of conflict, that is exactly what I would do. The plot thickens.....

Unregistered
03-04-08, 01:06
NUS can invest in properties and whatever it likes. But the following questions remain in this deal (some not mentioned in the letter by the writer, Nicholas Kong who was appointed director of Ankerite on 5 July 2007).
1) How did NUS get the opportunity to invest in Ankerite (an obscure company) if there is no relationship between it and Capitaland?
2) Why did the original announcement by Capitaland about the deal disclosed HPL as a buyer but hid the identity of NUS?
3) Why did Capitaland sell the stake to NUS at cost given that it is supposed to maximise profits to its shareholders, unless Capitaland felt it has bought a "lemon", which is unlikely given that it was only 3 months after the purchase and it has a smart CEO?
Yes, the fact that the purchase of Ankerite took place 3 months later may be used to justify no conflict of interest. But if I want to avoid perception of conflict, that is exactly what I would do. The plot thickens.....

Unregistered
10-04-08, 18:54
NUS said in its self defense: "The possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also considered before the university acquired its 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite."
So they admit that there is a conflict of interest but they went ahead anyway to conflict the sale!!! Why? So they then explain:

NUS said: "The university was satisfied that its investment in Ankerite does not give rise to a conflict of interest for a number of reasons. The agreement for the collective sale was concluded before the opportunity to invest in Ankerite arose."
NUS said the agreement for the collective sale was concluded! Concluded by who? When was it concluded? There are three parties involved or are they unaware. There is no conclusion of the collective sale until the Strata Titles Board approves the sale and sets a completion date. Haven't the NUS lawyers told them this? Can they be so bold as to claim it was concluded when the law tells them the collective needs to be approved by the STB?

So, there is a conflict of interest by their own admission since the sale was not "concluded."

"The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners who signed the agreement and were seeking the best sale price for their units."
This is contradictory - I've heard that there is a letter written by them to the Sales Committee asking them to lower the reserve price. Seems they don't want the best sale price as they want the most profit from the development!

So here again is more proof that they are showing a conflict of interest by their own admission since they were not seeking the best sale price.

Unregistered
10-04-08, 20:22
Quote:
'I've heard that there is a letter written by them to the Sales Committee asking them to lower the reserve price.'

I think the Sales Committee should come out and clarify this!

Unregistered
10-04-08, 20:50
Wow, the plot really thickens. Truth is more interesting than that draggy 'Enbloc' drama on channel 5.

Unregistered
10-04-08, 21:20
NUS said in its self defense: "The possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also considered before the university acquired its 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite."
So they admit that there is a conflict of interest but they went ahead anyway to conflict the sale!!! Why? So they then explain:

NUS said: "The university was satisfied that its investment in Ankerite does not give rise to a conflict of interest for a number of reasons. The agreement for the collective sale was concluded before the opportunity to invest in Ankerite arose."
NUS said the agreement for the collective sale was concluded! Concluded by who? When was it concluded? There are three parties involved or are they unaware. There is no conclusion of the collective sale until the Strata Titles Board approves the sale and sets a completion date. Haven't the NUS lawyers told them this? Can they be so bold as to claim it was concluded when the law tells them the collective needs to be approved by the STB?

So, there is a conflict of interest by their own admission since the sale was not "concluded."

"The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners who signed the agreement and were seeking the best sale price for their units."
This is contradictory - I've heard that there is a letter written by them to the Sales Committee asking them to lower the reserve price. Seems they don't want the best sale price as they want the most profit from the development!

So here again is more proof that they are showing a conflict of interest by their own admission since they were not seeking the best sale price.
Seems like you don't understand English very well. As a result you are picking at the wrong things.

I urge you not to display your ignorance.

Unregistered
10-04-08, 22:16
If there is evidence for wrongdoing, perhaps it is prudent to contact the Commercial Affairs Department. The CAD can conduct an investigation and ascertain if there is a problem.

Unregistered
11-04-08, 15:29
Seems like you don't understand English very well. As a result you are picking at the wrong things.

I urge you not to display your ignorance.

I WAS IGNORANT until I read what was published in the TODAY newspaper on 17 March 2008:

Heading: "NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query"
By Teo Xuanwei, TODAY | Posted: 17 March 2008 1032 hrs

SINGAPORE: Fresh revelations about the relationship between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and purchaser Ankerite have surfaced, adding a new twist to the Gillman Heights condominium collective sale brouhaha.

Acting for a group of minority owners fighting to scupper the Strata Titles Board's (STB) approval of the S$548-million sale of the property to developer CapitaLand, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang revealed in submissions to the High Court last Friday that condo majority owner NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite sometime around July 5 last year — about five months after the en bloc sale was inked.

This fact, which was not available to the STB before it approved the deal, meant the Board was unable to make a "fully-informed judgment".

CapitaLand had reportedly announced on May 15 last year that HPL Orchard Place and "two private funds" had bought 50 per cent of its subsidiary Ankerite.

The court learnt on Friday that the NUS was one of the two unidentified private funds and had acquired a 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite. The NUS owns 303 units, or about half, of the property."

I WAS IGNORANT until I read the Land Title (Strata) (Amendment) Bill No. 32/2007 which says (9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (2) – (a) if the Board is not satisfied that – (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: . . . (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors;

I WAS IGNORANT until I read the PARLIAMENT DISCUSSION:
In Parliament the discussion on “The LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL” states: Point 13 “Let me now elaborate on the role of the Board . . . is to determine that the proposed sale is bona fide and an arm’s length transaction . . . The Board will look at . . . the relationship of the purchaser to the owners, to ensure that there is no collusion. If the Board decides that the transaction is bona fide and an arms length transaction, the sale will proceed.”

How is there no "conflict of interest" since it has a "relationship of the purchaser to the owners"-NUS. Are we ensured that there is no collusion? The information about their special relationship was not revealed to the Board but rather it was hidden from the Board and the other owners since CapitaLand described them as one of two "private funds." If they had nothing to hide, then why did they hide it from the STB?

As to your comment that I "don't understand English very well" please don't trivialize this matter but show some respect to other forumers.

Unregistered
11-04-08, 22:30
I WAS IGNORANT until I read what was published in the TODAY newspaper on 17 March 2008:

Heading: "NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query"
By Teo Xuanwei, TODAY | Posted: 17 March 2008 1032 hrs

SINGAPORE: Fresh revelations about the relationship between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and purchaser Ankerite have surfaced, adding a new twist to the Gillman Heights condominium collective sale brouhaha.

Acting for a group of minority owners fighting to scupper the Strata Titles Board's (STB) approval of the S$548-million sale of the property to developer CapitaLand, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang revealed in submissions to the High Court last Friday that condo majority owner NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite sometime around July 5 last year — about five months after the en bloc sale was inked.

This fact, which was not available to the STB before it approved the deal, meant the Board was unable to make a "fully-informed judgment".

CapitaLand had reportedly announced on May 15 last year that HPL Orchard Place and "two private funds" had bought 50 per cent of its subsidiary Ankerite.

The court learnt on Friday that the NUS was one of the two unidentified private funds and had acquired a 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite. The NUS owns 303 units, or about half, of the property."

I WAS IGNORANT until I read the Land Title (Strata) (Amendment) Bill No. 32/2007 which says (9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (2) – (a) if the Board is not satisfied that – (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: . . . (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors;

I WAS IGNORANT until I read the PARLIAMENT DISCUSSION:
In Parliament the discussion on “The LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL” states: Point 13 “Let me now elaborate on the role of the Board . . . is to determine that the proposed sale is bona fide and an arm’s length transaction . . . The Board will look at . . . the relationship of the purchaser to the owners, to ensure that there is no collusion. If the Board decides that the transaction is bona fide and an arms length transaction, the sale will proceed.”

How is there no "conflict of interest" since it has a "relationship of the purchaser to the owners"-NUS. Are we ensured that there is no collusion? The information about their special relationship was not revealed to the Board but rather it was hidden from the Board and the other owners since CapitaLand described them as one of two "private funds." If they had nothing to hide, then why did they hide it from the STB?

As to your comment that I "don't understand English very well" please don't trivialize this matter but show some respect to other forumers.
Trivialize, as in make trivial? Far from it.

You misquoted the NUS statements. That's why you need some English lessons.

Unregistered
11-04-08, 22:40
NUS said in its self defense: "The possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also considered before the university acquired its 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite."
So they admit that there is a conflict of interest but they went ahead anyway to conflict the sale!!! Why? So they then explain:

NUS said: "The university was satisfied that its investment in Ankerite does not give rise to a conflict of interest for a number of reasons. The agreement for the collective sale was concluded before the opportunity to invest in Ankerite arose."
NUS said the agreement for the collective sale was concluded! Concluded by who? When was it concluded? There are three parties involved or are they unaware. There is no conclusion of the collective sale until the Strata Titles Board approves the sale and sets a completion date. Haven't the NUS lawyers told them this? Can they be so bold as to claim it was concluded when the law tells them the collective needs to be approved by the STB?

So, there is a conflict of interest by their own admission since the sale was not "concluded."

"The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners who signed the agreement and were seeking the best sale price for their units."
This is contradictory - I've heard that there is a letter written by them to the Sales Committee asking them to lower the reserve price. Seems they don't want the best sale price as they want the most profit from the development!

So here again is more proof that they are showing a conflict of interest by their own admission since they were not seeking the best sale price.
OK - I'll be kind enough to help you.

Firstly, the "possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also CONSIDERED" does not mean admitting conflict of interest. They thought about it and decided that there was no conflict.

Secondly, they said that "the AGREEMENT for the collective sale was concluded", not that the sale was concluded.

Thirdly, I'm not sure if you have heard the right things but even so, lowering the reserve price means that they are keen to sell but yet at the best possible price. This is a test in logic.

Lastly, one cannot "conflict" a sale, because "conflict" is not a verb.

DrMinority
19-04-08, 23:06
The Straits Times (Singapore)
April 19, 2008 Saturday
NUS played critical role in Gillman Heights en-bloc sale

I REFER to Mr Nicholas Kong's response on behalf of the National University of Singapore ('NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal', April 2). We minority owners - who have no wish to hawk our homes - of Gillman Heights in which estate NUS, by virtue of its 50 per cent ownership (303 units out of a total of 607), is the Goliath, wish to share our experience in the collective sale of Gillman Heights and, in particular, the critical role played by NUS.

The owners were relieved by NUS' reassurance at an owners' meeting on Feb 18, 2006 that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' of individual owners decided to sell. We assumed, in the case of a collective sale, majority must be at least 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, depending on the legal age of the estate, but definitely not 51 per cent.

Just over 32 per cent (or around 65 per cent of owners of the 304 units) chose to sell. The owners assumed that that should put paid to the collective sale. However, the sales committee left us in suspense. In June 2006, it announced that NUS had decided to join the sellers. With NUS' 50 per cent, the total percentage jumped to 82.7 per cent.

In May last year, we learnt that Hotel Properties Ltd and two private funds had taken up stakes in the buyer of Gillman Heights, Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand. CapitaLand would retain a 50 per cent ownership of Ankerite. However, owners of the two funds were not identified.

Only during the High Court appeal in March this year was it revealed that NUS owns one of the private funds. It has a 16 per cent stake in Ankerite. The Strata Titles Board did not have this material information during its hearing of objections in September and October last year and before it issued its ruling in December. Thus, it could not be aware of NUS' direct financial interest in Ankerite at earlier mediation sessions held in June and July last year.

Mr Kong asserts: 'The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners seeking the best sale price for their units.' In 2006, after the individual owners had made their choice and before the June announcement that NUS would sell, much was going on while the owners were kept in the dark. It belatedly come to light that the delays had much to do with NUS' 'suggestions' that the reserve price be slashed by a hefty 20 per cent (a letter to this effect, dated May 16, 2006, was sent by NUS to the chairman of the Gillman Heights sales committee). Was that NUS' idea of 'aligning' its financial interests with those of the owners?

Lam Seng Ming and three other owners

James Tan
19-04-08, 23:28
The Straits Times (Singapore)
April 19, 2008 Saturday
NUS played critical role in Gillman Heights en-bloc sale

I REFER to Mr Nicholas Kong's response on behalf of the National University of Singapore ('NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal', April 2). We minority owners - who have no wish to hawk our homes - of Gillman Heights in which estate NUS, by virtue of its 50 per cent ownership (303 units out of a total of 607), is the Goliath, wish to share our experience in the collective sale of Gillman Heights and, in particular, the critical role played by NUS.

The owners were relieved by NUS' reassurance at an owners' meeting on Feb 18, 2006 that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' of individual owners decided to sell. We assumed, in the case of a collective sale, majority must be at least 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, depending on the legal age of the estate, but definitely not 51 per cent.

Just over 32 per cent (or around 65 per cent of owners of the 304 units) chose to sell. The owners assumed that that should put paid to the collective sale. However, the sales committee left us in suspense. In June 2006, it announced that NUS had decided to join the sellers. With NUS' 50 per cent, the total percentage jumped to 82.7 per cent.

In May last year, we learnt that Hotel Properties Ltd and two private funds had taken up stakes in the buyer of Gillman Heights, Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand. CapitaLand would retain a 50 per cent ownership of Ankerite. However, owners of the two funds were not identified.

Only during the High Court appeal in March this year was it revealed that NUS owns one of the private funds. It has a 16 per cent stake in Ankerite. The Strata Titles Board did not have this material information during its hearing of objections in September and October last year and before it issued its ruling in December. Thus, it could not be aware of NUS' direct financial interest in Ankerite at earlier mediation sessions held in June and July last year.

Mr Kong asserts: 'The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners seeking the best sale price for their units.' In 2006, after the individual owners had made their choice and before the June announcement that NUS would sell, much was going on while the owners were kept in the dark. It belatedly come to light that the delays had much to do with NUS' 'suggestions' that the reserve price be slashed by a hefty 20 per cent (a letter to this effect, dated May 16, 2006, was sent by NUS to the chairman of the Gillman Heights sales committee). Was that NUS' idea of 'aligning' its financial interests with those of the owners?

Lam Seng Ming and three other owners


The more I read about en bloc issues, the more my hair stands. I thought Regent Garden was bad enough with purchaser going behind the majority owners to enter into a side deal with the minority owners in order to force the sale at below market price.

According to the above writer, if it were true that NUS did ask the SC to lower the RP, and given the vested interest in Ankerite, as against NUS's earlier undertaking that it would not intervene (am I correct?) in the en bloc process because of its 50% ownership power, I have lost the last 1% faith in private en bloc.

Perhaps, we should consider one writer's suggestion -- all private estates can only be sold to the govt with the same HDB en bloc, or SERS, principle -- you get one for one plus cash compensation. You can sell the new one later.

This will take care of the greed factor and focus only on the need to maximise the plot ratio and the renewal of the buildings.

gillmanfolk
20-04-08, 09:10
:doh: just wonder how STB approve such sale if NUS is ready involved in the sale pricing
The Straits Times (Singapore)
April 19, 2008 Saturday
NUS played critical role in Gillman Heights en-bloc sale

I REFER to Mr Nicholas Kong's response on behalf of the National University of Singapore ('NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal', April 2). We minority owners - who have no wish to hawk our homes - of Gillman Heights in which estate NUS, by virtue of its 50 per cent ownership (303 units out of a total of 607), is the Goliath, wish to share our experience in the collective sale of Gillman Heights and, in particular, the critical role played by NUS.

The owners were relieved by NUS' reassurance at an owners' meeting on Feb 18, 2006 that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' of individual owners decided to sell. We assumed, in the case of a collective sale, majority must be at least 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, depending on the legal age of the estate, but definitely not 51 per cent.

Just over 32 per cent (or around 65 per cent of owners of the 304 units) chose to sell. The owners assumed that that should put paid to the collective sale. However, the sales committee left us in suspense. In June 2006, it announced that NUS had decided to join the sellers. With NUS' 50 per cent, the total percentage jumped to 82.7 per cent.

In May last year, we learnt that Hotel Properties Ltd and two private funds had taken up stakes in the buyer of Gillman Heights, Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand. CapitaLand would retain a 50 per cent ownership of Ankerite. However, owners of the two funds were not identified.

Only during the High Court appeal in March this year was it revealed that NUS owns one of the private funds. It has a 16 per cent stake in Ankerite. The Strata Titles Board did not have this material information during its hearing of objections in September and October last year and before it issued its ruling in December. Thus, it could not be aware of NUS' direct financial interest in Ankerite at earlier mediation sessions held in June and July last year.

Mr Kong asserts: 'The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners seeking the best sale price for their units.' In 2006, after the individual owners had made their choice and before the June announcement that NUS would sell, much was going on while the owners were kept in the dark. It belatedly come to light that the delays had much to do with NUS' 'suggestions' that the reserve price be slashed by a hefty 20 per cent (a letter to this effect, dated May 16, 2006, was sent by NUS to the chairman of the Gillman Heights sales committee). Was that NUS' idea of 'aligning' its financial interests with those of the owners?

Lam Seng Ming and three other owners

Pink4
20-04-08, 17:34
Why is the dirt from Regent Garden littered on every thread? :sleep:

Forumer
20-04-08, 19:16
:doh: just wonder how STB approve such sale if NUS is ready involved in the sale pricing

What's the status of the sale & purchase agreement since the completion date is now past?
As to the question of how STB would have dealt with the case, Part VA of the LTSA explicitly states that:
“(9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (1) — (a) if the Board is satisfied that — (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: A) the sale price for the lots and the common property in the strata title plan; (B) the method of distributing the proceeds of sale; and (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors”.

However, before anyone can form a conclusion, there are still some missing puzzles. If the postings in this forum are factually correct and have been truthfully made, the followings appear to be the sequence of events:-

18 Feb 2006: NUS gave assurances that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' decided to sell.
16 May 2006: NUS sent 'suggestions' to SC chairman that the reserve price be slashed by 20%.
Date X: Reserve price was slashed / not slashed???
23 Jun 2006: NUS signed the CSA, resulting in a majority of 82% being achieved.
Date Y: Majority entered into a sale & purchase agreement with Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand.
15 May 2007: CapitaLand announced that HPL and "two private funds" had bought 50% of Ankerite.
Date Z: Majority made an application to STB. NUS purchase of Ankerite was not disclosed in the application.
5 Jul 2007: NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite and NUS’s Chief Investment Officer was appointed director of Ankerite.
Sep-Oct 2007: STB’s hearings of the case.
Dec 2007: STB issued its ruling. Completion date was fixed to 20 Mar 2008.
Mar 2008: It was revealed during the High Court appeal that NUS owned one of the private funds and it had a 16% stake in Ankerite.It is not clear whether the reserve price was eventually slashed and what are the dates that the majority had (a) contracted to sell to Ankerite; and (b) made the application to STB. Were the dates (Y & Z) before or after 15 May 2007? If before, how many months apart are they?

Norman
20-04-08, 21:44
Why is the dirt from Regent Garden littered on every thread? :sleep:

becos the dirt lost money and not happy? so must have equal misery.. tell every tom dick and harry how RG minority owners make his life misery becos they got more money than he did!

James Tan
20-04-08, 22:27
What's the status of the sale & purchase agreement since the completion date is now past?
As to the question of how STB would have dealt with the case, Part VA of the LTSA explicitly states that:
“(9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (1) — (a) if the Board is satisfied that — (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: A) the sale price for the lots and the common property in the strata title plan; (B) the method of distributing the proceeds of sale; and (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors”.

However, before anyone can form a conclusion, there are still some missing puzzles. If the postings in this forum are factually correct and have been truthfully made, the followings appear to be the sequence of events:-

18 Feb 2006: NUS gave assurances that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' decided to sell.
16 May 2006: NUS sent 'suggestions' to SC chairman that the reserve price be slashed by 20%.
Date X: Reserve price was slashed / not slashed???
23 Jun 2006: NUS signed the CSA, resulting in a majority of 82% being achieved.
Date Y: Majority entered into a sale & purchase agreement with Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand.
15 May 2007: CapitaLand announced that HPL and "two private funds" had bought 50% of Ankerite.
Date Z: Majority made an application to STB. NUS purchase of Ankerite was not disclosed in the application.
5 Jul 2007: NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite and NUS’s Chief Investment Officer was appointed director of Ankerite.
Sep-Oct 2007: STB’s hearings of the case.
Dec 2007: STB issued its ruling. Completion date was fixed to 20 Mar 2008.
Mar 2008: It was revealed during the High Court appeal that NUS owned one of the private funds and it had a 16% stake in Ankerite.It is not clear whether the reserve price was eventually slashed and what are the dates that the majority had (a) contracted to sell to Ankerite; and (b) made the application to STB. Were the dates (Y & Z) before or after 15 May 2007? If before, how many months apart are they?

Based on the chronology given above, it appears that NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite with its Chief Investment Officer being appointed a director of Ankerite on 5 Jul 2007, whereas the STB's hearings were from Sep to Oct 2007. If these dates are correct, then NUS should have disclosed its interests to STB during the hearing and not until the High Court Appeal.

That's only my personal view based on the chronology given above.

James Tan
20-04-08, 22:39
Why is the dirt from Regent Garden littered on every thread? :sleep:

BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN TO EVERY STRATA TITLE PROPERTY OWNER FOR HIS/HER OWN INTEREST.

Why are you so worked up and taking it personal with uncouth language as "dirt", and inflate it to "every thread"? Are you one of the minority owners of Regent Garden and therefore afraid of the publicity?:o In any case, what "dirt" are you screaming about when it was merely a cross reference in only one sentence and without any elaboration of the case? You cannot be a neutral party seeking infor and knowledge.

Please respect other writers if you want to be respected (unless you don't want to be). If any infor posted is incorrect, please provide the facts, but don't smear the thread with personal vendetta. :tsk-tsk: :tsk-tsk: Thank You.

James Tan
20-04-08, 22:44
becos the dirt lost money and not happy? so must have equal misery.. tell every tom dick and harry how RG minority owners make his life misery becos they got more money than he did!


Norman, I respected your earlier posts, but this one stoops too low because you are making baseless allegations. Your last statement is very low class. Please respect yourself if you want to be respected.

If you are not one of the minority owners or related to them, you should not take sides -- any comment must be justified by facts for readers to make an informed conclusion.

Pink4
20-04-08, 23:02
Mr. James Tan, why are you so worked up? Don't you find repeating the same unhappiness over and over again is like digging up dirt and throwing it everywhere? What is so uncouth about saying that? To us, your case is already very stale. We don't want to part of your quarrels. Must anyone who do not wish to read the same suff over and over again be a minority somewhere? You are very sensitive and you sound like a broken record. :sleep: :sleep:

This thread is about Gillman Heights. Please respect that, and yes first respect yourself.

Norman
21-04-08, 00:43
Norman, I respected your earlier posts, but this one stoops too low because you are making baseless allegations. Your last statement is very low class. Please respect yourself if you want to be respected.

If you are not one of the minority owners or related to them, you should not take sides -- any comment must be justified by facts for readers to make an informed conclusion.

i not minority owner. i taxi driver like you. i take sides learn from you. your facts about you speak for itself too.

readers like taxi passenger. can make own conclusion that you are majority owner.

and pink4 is correct.. this is about gillman. not everything about your RG okay?

James Tan
21-04-08, 10:25
Mr. James Tan, why are you so worked up? Don't you find repeating the same unhappiness over and over again is like digging up dirt and throwing it everywhere? What is so uncouth about saying that? To us, your case is already very stale. We don't want to part of your quarrels. Must anyone who do not wish to read the same suff over and over again be a minority somewhere? You are very sensitive and you sound like a broken record. :sleep: :sleep:

This thread is about Gillman Heights. Please respect that, and yes first respect yourself.


Mr. Pink4, I am sorry if I had hit your raw nerve. I merely made one cross reference, only once and without even giving any detail about the other estate's problems, yet you flared up repeatedly.

Yes, you are right that this thread is about Gillman Heights and therefore I failed to see why you are making so much fuss about another estate when one writer made a simple one line cross reference, unless there is something other forumers don't know.

Therefore, I shall treat this matter closed. If you want to debate about the other estate (shall not mention the name to avoid hitting your raw nerve another time), let's do it at their thread. Thus, I will not reply you and don't waste other forumers' time fighting back. Good bye.

P.S. As a matter of fact, I have far more friends at Gillman Heights than at the other estate. One of them is Mr. Lam who wrote earlier, so I would not want to waste their precious space with useless banter. Thank you, Pink and Nor Pink.

James Tan
21-04-08, 10:28
i not minority owner. i taxi driver like you. i take sides learn from you. your facts about you speak for itself too.

readers like taxi passenger. can make own conclusion that you are majority owner.

and pink4 is correct.. this is about gillman. not everything about your RG okay?


Thank you, your personal view noted, but baseless allegations denied.

See my reply to Pink4 which is ditto for you.

Wish you luck and many passengers.

Pink4
21-04-08, 11:18
:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: