Fresh revelations about the relationship between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and purchaser Ankerite have surfaced, adding a new twist to the Gillman Heights condominium collective sale brouhaha.
Residents wearing T-shirts that say 'I love Gillman Heights' outside the High CourtActing for a group of minority owners fighting to scupper the Strata Titles Board's (STB) approval of the S$548-million sale of the property to developer CapitaLand, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang revealed in submissions to the High Court last Friday that condo majority owner NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite sometime around July 5 last year — about five months after the en bloc sale was inked.
This fact, which was not available to the STB before it approved the deal, meant the Board was unable to make a "fully-informed judgment".
CapitaLand had reportedly announced on May 15 last year that HPL Orchard Place and "two private funds" had bought 50 per cent of its subsidiary Ankerite.
The court learnt on Friday that the NUS was one of the two unidentified private funds and had acquired a 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite. The NUS owns 303 units, or about half, of the property.
The 22 owners are also citing other grounds to oppose the sale of the sprawling 607-unit Alexandra Road estate. They revolve around how the former HUDC estate's age was calculated, the way the sale process was conducted and how the sale price was arrived at.
One of the issues was whether Gillman Heights had acquired consent from 90 per cent of the owners for an en bloc sale if it were less than 10 years old.
Although it was completed in 1984, the condo only underwent privatisation in 1995 and acquired the Temporary Occupation Permits or Certificates of Strata Completion (CSC) in 2002. At the time, the NUS had agreed to the en bloc sale on June 22, 2002, the agreeing signatories made up 82.43 per cent only.
However, Senior Counsel Quek Mong Hwa, who is representing the majority owners, said en bloc sales of three privatised HUDC estates — Amberville, Waterfront View and Farrer Court — had been successfully completed before the Gillman Heights saga.
Two other similar estates, Minton Rise and Tampines Court, were also awaiting approval from the STB.
In his rebuttal, Mr Hwang said these estates did not have Temporary Occupation Permits or Certificates of Strata Completion issued by the Building and Construction Authority at the time the en bloc sales were completed.
On Sunday, some of the 22 minority owners told TODAY they were fighting to overturn the deal because they "love their homes". The hearing continues tomorrow. - TODAY/ar
.jpg)
2 comments:
NUS: No Conflict Of Interest In Property Deal
Source : The Straits Times, Apr 2, 2008
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
NUS Played Critical Role In Gillman Heights En-Bloc Sale
Source : The Straits Times, Apr 19, 2008
I REFER to Mr Nicholas Kong's response on behalf of the National University of Singapore ('NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal', April 2). We minority owners - who have no wish to hawk our homes - of Gillman Heights in which estate NUS, by virtue of its 50 per cent ownership (303 units out of a total of 607), is the Goliath, wish to share our experience in the collective sale of Gillman Heights and, in particular, the critical role played by NUS.
The owners were relieved by NUS' reassurance at an owners' meeting on Feb 18, 2006 that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' of individual owners decided to sell. We assumed, in the case of a collective sale, majority must be at least 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, depending on the legal age of the estate, but definitely not 51 per cent.
Just over 32 per cent (or around 65 per cent of owners of the 304 units) chose to sell. The owners assumed that that should put paid to the collective sale. However, the sales committee left us in suspense. In June 2006, it announced that NUS had decided to join the sellers. With NUS' 50 per cent, the total percentage jumped to 82.7 per cent.
In May last year, we learnt that Hotel Properties Ltd and two private funds had taken up stakes in the buyer of Gillman Heights, Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand. CapitaLand would retain a 50 per cent ownership of Ankerite. However, owners of the two funds were not identified.
Only during the High Court appeal in March this year was it revealed that NUS owns one of the private funds. It has a 16 per cent stake in Ankerite. The Strata Titles Board did not have this material information during its hearing of objections in September and October last year and before it issued its ruling in December. Thus, it could not be aware of NUS' direct financial interest in Ankerite at earlier mediation sessions held in June and July last year.
Mr Kong asserts: 'The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners seeking the best sale price for their units.' In 2006, after the individual owners had made their choice and before the June announcement that NUS would sell, much was going on while the owners were kept in the dark. It belatedly come to light that the delays had much to do with NUS' 'suggestions' that the reserve price be slashed by a hefty 20 per cent (a letter to this effect, dated May 16, 2006, was sent by NUS to the chairman of the Gillman Heights sales committee). Was that NUS' idea of 'aligning' its financial interests with those of the owners?
Lam Seng Ming
and three other owners
Post a Comment