Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: High Court wants STB to hear Regent Court sale appeal

  1. #31
    Forumer Guest

    Default Re: Court directs Regent Garden sale to Allgreen to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by James Tan
    However, we cannot turn a blind eye to the very fact that the purchaser offered a gratification to the minority owners to force sell at the $34.0m.
    I won't consider it a forced sale if both the buyer and seller had willingly entered the contract to buy and sell at the agreed price. Having read the affidavits that you had posted, it appears to me that the majority had proceeded to apply to STB for the sale order after having received copy of the URA baseline report. This act evidenced either their ignorance of the issues or their willingness to sell at the contracted price even though the estimated baseline was lower than the actual given in the URA letter.

    Yes, as an owner, I agree with you about not signing the CSA blindly. But, I would say that it is equally important that sufficient due care and deligence be given when voting the representatives into the SC. Otherwise, not only will you end up selling your property for a song, you may also inadvertantly be dragged into various court proceedings and incurred unnecessary legal fees.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: Court directs Regent Garden sale to Allgreen to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Forumer
    I won't consider it a forced sale if both the buyer and seller had willingly entered the contract to buy and sell at the agreed price. Having read the affidavits that you had posted, it appears to me that the majority had proceeded to apply to STB for the sale order after having received copy of the URA baseline report. This act evidenced either their ignorance of the issues or their willingness to sell at the contracted price even though the estimated baseline was lower than the actual given in the URA letter.

    Yes, as an owner, I agree with you about not signing the CSA blindly. But, I would say that it is equally important that sufficient due care and deligence be given when voting the representatives into the SC. Otherwise, not only will you end up selling your property for a song, you may also inadvertantly be dragged into various court proceedings and incurred unnecessary legal fees.
    Thank you, Forumer. I agree with you fully that as owners we should not sign the CSA blindly, and that we should vote carefully the SC, etc.

    However, how many owners really know what a CSA is, to begin with? And how many SC members are experienced enough to handle the complexities of an en bloc sale?

    At the end of the day, most, if not all, en blocs are in the hands of the housing agent who takes us for a whirldwind tour until we land in the Courts.

    Without making any allegations, it is reasonable for any layman to conclude that a housing agent can do more biz with the developer than any SC since there can be only one en bloc per estate, but a developer can purchase and sell many estates during the lifespan of the housing agent. Need I elaborate?

    Perhaps the suggestion of another writer (in another thread) is the best. He says sell only to the gahmen (he meant government), then govt en bloc it in HDB style -- SERS -- one for one plus cash compensation. Thereafter, the owner can sell his new unit for more cash. In this way, all those wheeling and dealing, all those side deals under the table, or under the bed, will cease. Only then will the greed factor be removed and the focus on maximising the plot ratio usage and replacement of aged buildings.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: Court directs Regent Garden sale to Allgreen to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Forumer
    I won't consider it a forced sale if both the buyer and seller had willingly entered the contract to buy and sell at the agreed price. Having read the affidavits that you had posted, it appears to me that the majority had proceeded to apply to STB for the sale order after having received copy of the URA baseline report. This act evidenced either their ignorance of the issues or their willingness to sell at the contracted price even though the estimated baseline was lower than the actual given in the URA letter.

    Yes, as an owner, I agree with you about not signing the CSA blindly. But, I would say that it is equally important that sufficient due care and deligence be given when voting the representatives into the SC. Otherwise, not only will you end up selling your property for a song, you may also inadvertantly be dragged into various court proceedings and incurred unnecessary legal fees.
    Sorry, I forgot to answer your first point: the application was submitted to STB BEFORE the building baseline became available, based on the transcript of the proceedings by STB.

  4. #34
    DrMinority Guest

    Default Re: Court directs Regent Garden sale to Allgreen to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by James Tan
    As outsiders, we really don't know who is right or who is wrong. All wecan conclude now is that minority owners can accept side deals openly(previously it was on the quiet), and so why don't we all just beminority owners from now on and don't sign the CSA?

    Curiouser and curiouser. Ever since condosing requires registration we've seen the death of many unregistered users. You certainly are one of the more erudite writers on the forum, and I am TRULY surprised that you are an "outsider" to the Regent Gardens case. Let me explain why this came as a surprise - (a) you wrote what must be the equivalent of over 10 A4 pages if not more on a solitary specific enbloc case, (b) you wrote with great passion and conviction against the unfair "gratification" that minority owners have gained from this sale, (c) you have far more insider knowledge of the case than an outsider should rightly have (!), (d) you have access to legal documents that I'd think most people not involved in the case are unable to obtain (although I'd be glad to prove this wrong). If I have to bet, I'd say you do not come off as an outsider, although of course the evidence on this is purely circumstantial. But as you pointed out, circumstantial stuff can be convincing



    Re the point you raised about 'beware of signing a CSA', I'd heartily endorse. People who sign a legal document on a deal amounting to several (if not hundreds of) millions of dollars, without understanding clearly the terms, conditions, limitations, obligations... is just plain naive. However, the rationale for asking people to be careful of signing the CSA - because subsidiary proprietors might well end up on the losing end of a sale due to potential side-offers if they become signatories - is very problematic.


    With regards to 'know thy SC', again I agree. That's why the amended law, flawed as it is, puts an INCREASED (but NOT SUFFICIENT) burden on the Sales Committee to be more and more accountable to owners, and more transparent. It is also why lawyers are required to be present to explain the CSA to owners, although it'd be much better for owners to obtain their own independent legal advice.




    It is also why, many SCs, marketing agents, etc are complaining to the government about how such increased measures are actually stalling urban renewal because it's now much harder to push an enbloc sale through.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: Court directs Regent Garden sale to Allgreen to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by DrMinority
    Curiouser and curiouser. Ever since condosing requires registration we've seen the death of many unregistered users. You certainly are one of the more erudite writers on the forum, and I am TRULY surprised that you are an "outsider" to the Regent Gardens case. Let me explain why this came as a surprise - (a) you wrote what must be the equivalent of over 10 A4 pages if not more on a solitary specific enbloc case, (b) you wrote with great passion and conviction against the unfair "gratification" that minority owners have gained from this sale, (c) you have far more insider knowledge of the case than an outsider should rightly have (!), (d) you have access to legal documents that I'd think most people not involved in the case are unable to obtain (although I'd be glad to prove this wrong). If I have to bet, I'd say you do not come off as an outsider, although of course the evidence on this is purely circumstantial. But as you pointed out, circumstantial stuff can be convincing



    Re the point you raised about 'beware of signing a CSA', I'd heartily endorse. People who sign a legal document on a deal amounting to several (if not hundreds of) millions of dollars, without understanding clearly the terms, conditions, limitations, obligations... is just plain naive. However, the rationale for asking people to be careful of signing the CSA - because subsidiary proprietors might well end up on the losing end of a sale due to potential side-offers if they become signatories - is very problematic.


    With regards to 'know thy SC', again I agree. That's why the amended law, flawed as it is, puts an INCREASED (but NOT SUFFICIENT) burden on the Sales Committee to be more and more accountable to owners, and more transparent. It is also why lawyers are required to be present to explain the CSA to owners, although it'd be much better for owners to obtain their own independent legal advice.




    It is also why, many SCs, marketing agents, etc are complaining to the government about how such increased measures are actually stalling urban renewal because it's now much harder to push an enbloc sale through.

    Thank you, Dr. Minority, for your compliments and concurrence on the principle of cavaet emptor.

    Pardon me for quoting you. You had earlier refused to accept circumstancial evidence, yet you are now slapping your own cheek with the same circumstancial evidence hypothesis on my identity. But I don't blame you because people will defend their own convictions although they reject others which are facsimile of their own convictions (equivalent of what Portia in the Merchant of Venice who said that she could advise a hundred people what to do, but could not do it herself).

    To satisfy your curiosity, let me come clean on my identity.

    I am not a majority owner. My source of information does come from a majority owner who happens to be a close friend. We were both committee members of a social club seven years ago and our family members interact regularly.

    And for the access to legal documents, I have a relative who works in one of the six legal firms in the Regent Garden entanglement. However, the code of conduct disallow him to show me any documents or disclose any confidential information. All he could do was to guide me on how to obtain the court documents which are available to the public, sure you know this.

    As regards my passion, you should have guessed better than the insider theory: I am a real estate agent with en bloc sales as an activity!

    And you are right: not only getting harder and harder to sign people up, almost impossible these days and with the market not moving, I have started driving the taxi, albeit part-time, to supplement my stalled income, unlike you Doctor, patients fall sick regardless of recession or boom time.

    Thank you, guess I have to take a break and spend more time on the road with my taxi to survive.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default

    FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

    The owners of Regent Garden are having the last laugh.

    According to some owners, they had originally wanted to sell their units individually in 2007 (four units were sold between mid-2006 and end 2006), but held back after the Sales Committee was constituted in end 2006.

    Even at the disputed price of S$34.0m., the premium was MORE THAN 40% than selling individually.

    For example, the last transaction for a 2,400 sq.ft. maisonette was $900,000, but the en bloc price was more than $1.3m., a hefty 45% premium.

    Even after offsetting the costs of litigation, etc. the premium was still more than 40%.

    With the world going into recession, the market value has receded back to the 2006 levels and may even go below the 2006 peak, i.e. the estate would probably be worth less than $30.0m. come 2009.

    As a result, the developer purchaser, Allgreen Properties, have decided to hold back the development of Regent Garden and are now offering the units for rental and some of the tenants are staying back, cheaply.

    The majority owners have filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of J. Lee Sieu Kein's sale order and if the owners succeed, Allgreen Properties will be at the receiving end of a QUADRUPLE WHAMMY (4 times over), yes, 4 times over.

    First whammy -- the extra $2m. paid to the six minority owners, unrecoverable
    Second whammy -- the high legal costs as Davinder Singh cannot come cheap
    Third whammy -- this can be debilitating depending on how the damages are assessed
    Fourth whammy -- market has crashed and development has to be postponed for at least 3 to 5 years.

    In the final analysis, this is like the big bank crash of US and Europe, the tainted milk case of Chine -- GREED, pure GREED.

    If the purchaser were not greedy and tried to buy out the 6 minorities, but honoured STB's ruling and topped up the difference (after all there was no additional cost as the top up came from the DC savings), the sale would have been closed last year and the property could have been launched in January 2008 before the market nose-dived.

    On the other hand, if the majority owners failed in their appeal, who would be the losers?

    The majority owners?

    NO, definitely NO. The biggest losers are all the housing developers, members of REDAS. Allgreen would be the biggest sinner.

    Why? because no one would dared sign up as a majority owner since minority owners can collect two pay cheques -- one from the main CSA shares and another directly from the developer.

    And if no one wants to be the first 80% to sign (and be shut out of the second pay check), can there be any more en bloc sale? (all en bloc activities have been hanged since 16 May 2008 with not a single estate getting its 80%).

    As for the Regent Garden owners, they have already won with more than 40% premium and collected their cheques based on the $34.0m. sale price. If they lose their appeal, they simply regard the legal costs as a sympathy discount to the purchaser since they no longer can sell the estate profitably!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    48

    Default

    En bloc - RIP. Unfortunately.

    It is good to have en blocs. Urban renewal, creates jobs, churns the economy, etc, otherwise, we get slums. Should have more en blocs in a recession.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Hey
    Came across this very informative post at Dr. Minority's blog:

    Francis Zhan, retired Chairman from Regent Gardens (RG) wrote to Dr. Minority asking his opinion on the "most controversial en bloc sale in Singapore"

    Very, very enlightening.

    http://enblocsingapore.blogspot.com/

  9. #39
    mr funny is offline Any complaints please PM me
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,129

    Default

    http://www.straitstimes.com/Money/St...ry_296788.html

    October 31, 2008 Friday

    High Court wants STB to hear Regent Court sale appeal


    THE Regent Court collective sale may yet happen: the High Court has thrown the case back to the Strata Titles Board (STB) to continue its hearing for the sale application.

    The STB threw out the sale late last year but yesterday, Justice Judith Prakash upheld the sale committee's appeal against that decision.

    It has been more than a year since the collective sale deal for the Serangoon Road estate was struck. The collective sale frenzy last year has since died, with a significant deterioration in sentiment in the real estate market.

    Regent Development agreed to buy Regent Court in April last year for $34 million. There were several objectors, with one claiming a financial loss of $93,935.75.

    Last December, the STB threw out the estate's sale application. It agreed that the objector had suffered financial loss, meaning that the sale proceeds would not cover his initial purchase price.

    The sale committee, which wanted the sale to go through, appealed against the decision. It contended that the estate purchaser Regent Development had given an undertaking that it would top up the difference of $93,935.75 once the sale went through, ensuring that the objector would not suffer a loss.

    But the STB did not consider this payment and took into account only the objector's purchase price and the sale price.

    The case was heard only recently as disgruntled owners had wanted to disband the sale committee.

    That move failed and the appeal went ahead. Justice Prakash did not give reasons for her decision yesterday. Drew and Napier represented the sale committee.

    JOYCE TEO

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mr funny
    http://www.straitstimes.com/Money/St...ry_296788.html

    October 31, 2008 Friday

    High Court wants STB to hear Regent Court sale appeal


    THE Regent Court collective sale may yet happen: the High Court has thrown the case back to the Strata Titles Board (STB) to continue its hearing for the sale application.

    The STB threw out the sale late last year but yesterday, Justice Judith Prakash upheld the sale committee's appeal against that decision.

    It has been more than a year since the collective sale deal for the Serangoon Road estate was struck. The collective sale frenzy last year has since died, with a significant deterioration in sentiment in the real estate market.

    Regent Development agreed to buy Regent Court in April last year for $34 million. There were several objectors, with one claiming a financial loss of $93,935.75.

    Last December, the STB threw out the estate's sale application. It agreed that the objector had suffered financial loss, meaning that the sale proceeds would not cover his initial purchase price.

    The sale committee, which wanted the sale to go through, appealed against the decision. It contended that the estate purchaser Regent Development had given an undertaking that it would top up the difference of $93,935.75 once the sale went through, ensuring that the objector would not suffer a loss.

    But the STB did not consider this payment and took into account only the objector's purchase price and the sale price.

    The case was heard only recently as disgruntled owners had wanted to disband the sale committee.

    That move failed and the appeal went ahead. Justice Prakash did not give reasons for her decision yesterday. Drew and Napier represented the sale committee.

    JOYCE TEO

    Mr. Funny has obviously mixed up Regent GARDEN with Regent COURT although both were sold for the same S$34.0m. Regent Garden is in West Coast Road with 31 units of apartments and masionettes, while Regent Court is in Upper Serangoon Road with 32 units of apartments.

    The difference, however, is polar opposite.

    In Regent Garden, the purchasers went behind the backs of the Sales Committee and paid an undisclosed sum to six minority owners to withdraw their objection, without the knowledge or consent of the majority owners.

    Regent Court, on the other hand, was an honest and open deal where the developer agreed to pay an additional amount to the financial loss case with the full knowledge, agreement and support of the SC and the majority owners.

Similar Threads

  1. Court of Appeal gives Shunfu Ville sale the green light
    By reporter2 in forum En Bloc Achieved
    Replies: 0
    -: 17-05-17, 22:27
  2. Two Gilstead Court owners file appeal over collective sale
    By reporter2 in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 01-04-15, 16:15
  3. Replies: 0
    -: 08-10-14, 17:21
  4. Regent Court
    By showa8 in forum District 12
    Replies: 17
    -: 15-10-11, 16:25
  5. Regent Court ruling explained
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 1
    -: 10-09-10, 01:31

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •