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.
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.
Are you sure? Will you be there?Originally Posted by Unregistered
any news regarding the judge decision?
maybe announce with horizon garden one time.
Look out for it in The Horizon Times tomorrow
OK Lar. Forum is better
Some people were too confident to outsmart the minority............?
Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query
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.....
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??
Closing one book on a volatile chapter in enbloc. Watch out for the sordid dramas on "Horizon Towers?"
Any complaints please PM me
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)
interesting read! the plot thickens....any ruling so far
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.
From the LT(S)A:
I wonder if (C) counts, since technically NUS is an SP and also purchaser?(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;
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!"
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!!
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.
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.
this website have many discussions on the same subject
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/vie...00ee30c684943b
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'
NUS bought some unit of Varsity park from Capital Land .
Any complaints please PM me
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
Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query
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.
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!
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 ?
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.....
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.....
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.
Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query
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!
Wow, the plot really thickens. Truth is more interesting than that draggy 'Enbloc' drama on channel 5.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote