Shanmugam casts doubts on intentions of Horizon Towers majority owners
HAVING got his wish to intervene in the hearing, Senior Counsel K Shanmugam — who is representing the consortium seeking to buy over Horizon Towers — sought to dominate yesterday's proceedings and lay bare what he claimed was the game plan of the majority owners in appealing against the Strata Titles Board's (STB) decision to abort the $500-million deal.
The board threw out the sale after three pages — supposed to contain signatures of three of the majority owners — were found to be missing from the sale order application.
The intention of the majority owners, according to Mr Shanmugam, was to have the case sent back to the STB and hope that the minority objectors would raise new arguments — including the claim that the contract was invalid.
Yesterday, Justice Choo Han Teck granted the applications by the consortium, Horizon Partners Private Limited (HPPL), and a splinter group of majority owners to have their cases heard by the court. It would "not be unjust and inconvenient to hear two more parties", the judge ruled.
Telling the other lawyers in the tussle — which included heavyweight legal eagles Senior Counsels K S Rajah and Michael Hwang who are representing some minority owners — to "get real", Mr Shanmugam also challenged them to argue before Justice Choo the validity of the contract between HPPL and the owners.
By doing so, he hopes to preempt what he believes would be the owners' game plan — to "get rid" of HPPL and succeed in the appeal as well.
Professing to have a "complicated mind", Mr Shanmugam explained that the Horizon Towers owners could plausibly renege on the contract by arguing that it had lapsed upon the original sale order deadline of Aug 11.
Two weeks ago, the owners resolved to extend the deadline by four months — a move that staved off HPPL's $1-billion lawsuit against them for the loss of profits.
But Mr Shanmugam revealed that up to two days before the resolution, circulars were sent out by some majority owners, including Ms Doreen Siow who had recently resigned from the sale committee, stating they would only consider the extension if the High Court appeal is granted.
It was only after HPPL's meeting with some of the owners at Hilton Hotel that they apparently changed their minds.
"We were very frank. We told them we are going to intervene (in the appeal) and explain to the court what the game is. And that we are going to prosecute the contract action rigorously," said Mr Shanmugam.
Alluding to Mr Rajah, Mr Shanmugam also suggested the owners and their lawyers were deliberately trying to stall for time.
Mr Rajah, who is Mr Shanmugam's former father-in-law, countered: "I hate to interrupt my learned friend in full flight, in all his investigative work. But what has all this got to do with the appeal?"
He added: "What he is doing is to cast Ms Doreen Siow in rather dark colours. He's doing what we wanted to avoid — HPPL is spreading its wings into every other corner. While we are all here talking about the appeal, all my learned friend is concerned with is HPPL's case."
Mr Shanmugam said all he wanted was to establish the "real intentions" of the parties involved.
And should Justice Choo grant the appeal, he asked that HPPL be allowed to present its case to STB, a request that had been twice turned down by the board.
The hearing continues today.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment