Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Horizon Towers saga roars back to life with new lawsuit

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default Horizon Towers saga roars back to life with new lawsuit

    My following post is a summary of the Court of appeal Judgment, I think that Mr Samtani's best option now is to look for other scape goats to share costs of the claim given that there were so many breeches in the course of the en-block process (the majority owners, negligent lawyers etc); not to mention the significant contributions by current law minister as then Snr Counsel representing HPL as well as so many other Snr Counsel from Singapore's legal scene.

    My sympathies go to him should he accept sole responsibility for the long fought case. In fact, I believe that as a matter of grace, the court and it's officers and the govt should offer some discounts as should the Singapore government since it has since been proven that the then en-block laws had been ambitious and flawed in their enaction and administration.
    STB, High court: care to waive your charges?

    26Jan2010
    Horizon Towers saga roars back to life with new lawsuit
    Source: Business Times, Michelle Quah
    Suit filed against some members of original sales panel
    A fresh lawsuit has just been filed over the failed en bloc sale of Horizon Towers – and a new chapter in the long-running saga is about to begin.
    It’s a suit that’s set to be a closely watched one in Singapore, seen as a litmus test for the possible legal action that can be brought to bear against those involved in this, as well as all other, en bloc sales.
    A group of Horizon Towers’ minority owners – those who had originally opposed the sale of the Leonie Hill development – are now suing some members of the original sales committee for their handling of the en bloc sale.
    According to documents filed with the High Court, these minority owners are looking to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they’ve incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.
    The sale of Horizon Towers – first tabled for $500 million to Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) in January 2007 – has been one of the most dramatic and long-drawn- out en bloc battles in Singapore’s history. The whole affair spanned more than two years and went back and forth between the Strata Titles Board (STB) and the High Court twice before finally being decided in the Court of Appeal.
    The Court of Appeal ruled in April last year that the deal could not go through because the development’s sales committee had failed to fulfil its duty on several counts.
    And now, three sets of minority owners – represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership – have cited that landmark judgment, as a basis on which to seek reimbursement for the hundreds of thousands they have each spent in this battle.

    They have served writs on former sales committee chairman Arjun Samtani and member Tan Kah Gee, alleging that they were ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’.
    The minorities, in their claim, allege that Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had ‘pushed for a quick sale of the property for their personal benefit’, because both had bought additional units in Horizon Towers, at the start of the collective sale process, and were keen to profit from that.
    Their statement of claim frequently cites the Court of Appeal judgment which had accepted, as facts of the case, that:
    # Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had bought additional units in the development;
    # The sales committee had received an alternative higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings, one day before HPL verbally indicated it was willing to purchase the development for $500 million; and
    # The sales committee agreed to go ahead and sell Horizon Towers to HPL, in spite of a suggestion from one committee member that it seek the approval of the other consenting owners because property prices had shot up, because it was concerned that the deal would fall through if the other owners were consulted.

    Justice Rajah, in his judgment, had also ruled that HPL and the estate’s majority owners should share the legal costs for the second High Court hearing, as well as the Court of Appeal hearing – and that the majority owners should bear the costs for the second STB. He also allowed two minority objectors who did not participate in the final appeal to be given 80 per cent of the costs incurred in the second STB and High Court hearings.
    The minority owners are now seeking compensation for the sums not covered by Justice Rajah’s judgment. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 to $370,000 in costs – making for a total claim of more than $800,000.

    In his defence, filed with the High Court, Mr Samtani states repeatedly that he was not alone in driving the sale process. He said ‘each and every member of the SC (sales committee) played an equally important role’ and that he ‘did not have any special powers’ that could influence the committee’s decisions.
    Mr Samtani also claimed that the committee ‘followed up on all expressions of offer’ for Horizon Towers and that it received no offer better than HPL’s at the relevant time. He said that, on the advice of the committee’s lawyers, Drew & Napier, the committee proceeded with the HPL offer.
    As for the additional unit he purchased, Mr Samtani said that it ‘was not for investment, instead it was for use by his son’. He claimed he had disclosed the purchase of an additional unit to Drew, and was not advised by Drew that he had to announce it to the other consenting owners.
    Mr Tan, who is represented by TSMP Law Corporation, has requested an extension of time to file his defence. Mr Samtani is represented by N Sreenivasan from Straits Law Practice.
    http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/mnt/...69734,00.html?

    References:
    - Oct 07, 2007: The horizon towers show: "PUT five senior counsel in one courtroom and you can be sure that sparks will fly." http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My+Money/Property/Story/A1Story20071011-29410.html
    - April 3, 2009: The Appeal Court judgement: http://business.asiaone.com/Business...03-133079.html
    - Apr 07, 2009: Troubled Towers: A timeline: http://business.asiaone.com/Business...06-133672.html
    - Apr 07, 2009: The lawyers: 21/2-year bonanza of billable hours: "Former Senior Counsel and current Law Minister K. Shanmugam also made an appearance, heading the Allen & Gledhill team representing the estate's buyer, the HPL consortium. In fact, Mr Shanmugam's last submission in court was for Horizon Towers - which also means he lost his last court case.": http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My%2...06-133669.html
    Last edited by BicCherry; 26-01-10 at 14:15. Reason: clarity

  2. #2
    mr funny is offline Any complaints please PM me
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,129

    Default

    http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/...69813,00.html?

    Published January 27, 2010

    Horizon Twrs defendant moves to strike out suit

    Says he was not a key player in en bloc deal sales committee

    By MICHELLE QUAH


    (SINGAPORE) The newest instalment of the Horizon Towers saga has taken a fresh turn, with one of the parties being sued now applying for the lawsuits against him and another to be struck out.

    Tan Kah Gee, a member of the original sales committee being sued by a group of minority owners, yesterday applied to the High Court for the suit to be struck out - saying the action was 'scandalous, frivolous (and) vexatious'.

    He also filed his defence against the claims made against him, saying he was not a key player in the sales committee which brokered the en bloc sale of the development.

    Mr Tan - and former sales committee chairman Arjun Samtani - are being sued by three sets of minority owners, who are looking to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.

    The minorities say they were made to defend their homes against an en bloc process actuated by a lack of good faith on the part of the sales committee, and had to spend much for their effort.

    The collective sale of Horizon Towers was an affair which spanned more than two years and involved two Strata Titles Board (STB) hearings and two High Court hearings before finally being decided in the Court of Appeal.

    The Court of Appeal ruled against the sale of the development in April last year, saying the sales committee failed to get the best price possible for Horizon Towers. It awarded costs for the second High Court hearing, the second STB hearing and the Court of Appeal hearing to the minority owners who had objected to the sale.

    But the minority owners are now suing Mr Tan and Mr Samtani to claim sums which they said they had spent in excess of what the Court of Appeal has awarded them. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 and $370,000 in costs - making for a total of more than $800,000.

    But Mr Tan - through his lawyers Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han and Ian Lim of TSMP Law Corporation - has moved to strike out their claim. He says the entire remedy sought by the minorities was already dealt with by the Court of Appeal last April, when it decided on how it would award costs to the various parties. He said their claim 'does not form a legitimate item of damage in a separate cause of action', neither does it 'flow from a different and additional wrong' from the Court of Appeal judgment.

    Mr Tan also responded to allegations made by the minorities that he was one of the 'key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process'.

    In his defence, he claimed he was 'not a key player' and cited various correspondence and minutes of sales committee meetings which he said showed that he did not play a major role in the various aspects of the collective sale.

    He also responded to the minorities' claim that he and Mr Samtani 'pushed for a quick sale of the property for their personal benefit' because both had bought additional units in Horizon Towers, at the start of the collective sale process, and were keen to profit from that.

    Mr Tan's defence was that he bought a second unit because the location and price were very attractive, and that he had acted in good faith at all times. He said he disclosed his purchase of a second unit to the rest of the sales committee, as well as to one of the minority owners now suing him. He claims he also disclosed the purchase to the sales committee's legal advisers and was told that he did not have to disclose the purchase of this unit.

    The minorities had also claimed, in their suit, that the sales committee had failed to follow up on alternative offers for Horizon Towers, including a higher offer from a Vineyard Holdings. They cited the Court of Appeal judgment, which ruled that the sales committee had failed 'to proactively follow up on the Vineyard offer and other expressions of interest'.

    Mr Tan said Vineyard's and other expressions of interest 'never substantively materialised' and that the sales committee had 'questioned the credibility of the expression of interest from Vineyard and their level of seriousness given that Vineyard was a Hong Kong company that was not well known and its lawyers were not from a Singaporean firm, but from a small Malaysian law firm'.

    He claims he suggested waiting for a higher offer, but that the majority of the sales committee did not agree. He said the sales committee genuinely felt they would not get a better offer than the one by Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL), and that they had been advised by their lawyers to accept the offer.

    The minorities will have 14 days to respond to Mr Tan's defence - and 14 days to respond to Mr Samtani's defence, which was filed last Wednesday. The court will also convene a date for the hearing of Mr Tan's striking-out summons.

    The minority owners are represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership. Mr Samtani is represented by N Sreenivasan from Straits Law Practice.

Similar Threads

  1. Horizon Towers
    By Arcachon in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 04-01-19, 11:39
  2. Replies: 0
    -: 12-07-18, 18:34
  3. Horizon Towers
    By ccsee in forum District 9
    Replies: 5
    -: 22-07-12, 00:08
  4. Horizon Towers lawsuit set to go on
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 1
    -: 30-03-10, 15:35
  5. Horizon Towers case back in High Court
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 5
    -: 15-05-08, 15:43

Posting Permissions

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