http://www.todayonline.com/articles/243681.asp
for infomation for those interested.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/243681.asp
for infomation for those interested.
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.
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.
Too many high-end cooks make the colourful ABC alphabet hot soup!!!!!!!!Originally Posted by Unregistered
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!"Originally Posted by Unregistered
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?
Buyer asked for 6 weeks extension. No completion today as they have to wait for judge's decision.
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.Originally Posted by Unregistered
In other word, they are failing their duties as the sales committee.Originally Posted by Unregistered
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?
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.
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..Originally Posted by Unregistered
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.Originally Posted by Unregistered
They owned 303 units out of the 608. This is not a stab but it went in an twist into the flesh.
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)
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.
#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.
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
#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"?
properties are in a big jam. enbloc are in jams. human are in jams. welcome to the jamming world.
Please check your facts. I think NUS did follow the majority.Originally Posted by Unregistered
There is something called the spirit of the law.Originally Posted by Unregistered
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.Originally Posted by Registered
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.
This enbloc looks as if a tornado went through it. All will still survive, because arses are covered.(CYA) Standard operating procedure. (SOP)Originally Posted by Unregistered
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.Originally Posted by Unregistered
enbloc like one nobody in the rong.Originally Posted by Unregistered
Heard the judgement will be out on Monday???
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.
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.