Source : The Business Times, July 15, 2009
Right to interest not dependent on actual outcome of sale: Court
ALL 210 owners at the Horizon Towers condominium will get a share of a $1.88 million sum which is the bank interest earned on a $50 million deposit from the estate's failed collective sale.
The Court of Appeal decided that 33 of the estate's minority owners, who did not agree to the collective sale in 2007, will also be eligible for a slice of the $1.88 million pie. This will work out to each owner getting about $8,900, depending on the size of the unit.
The en bloc sales committee of the estate had decided that the $1.88 million would be divided only among those who voted for the sale.
But the Court of Appeal, which disallowed the en bloc sale in April, said the sales committee was not entitled to split the money only among the majority.
The $1.88 million sum is the interest earned on a $50 million deposit which property developer HPL, which wanted to buy the estate for $500 million, placed after an agreement with the estate's sales committee in 2007.
Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah, writing the court's decision, said the $50 million deposit was meant for all unit owners at Horizon Towers.
Justice Rajah said that in the case of a successful sale, all owners, not just those who agreed to the sale, would get part of the interest earned as part of the contractual arrangements. In an aborted sale, the same should also apply, he said.
Justice Rajah added that whether the collective sale failed in the end or not was 'irrelevant', as the right to the interest is an accrued right and not dependent on the actual outcome of the sales and purchase agreement.
He was also disappointed with lawyers from Drew & Napier who had 'confused beneficial rights with contractual rights' in advising the sales committee to keep the interest for the majority owners.
Industry players said this was the first time the country's highest court has ruled on how such interest monies should be dealt with in aborted collective sales.
Horizon Towers' collective sale was one of the longest disputed collective sale sagas in Singapore. The whole affair spanned more than two years and went back and forth between the Strata Titles Board (STB) and the High Court a couple of times before finally being decided in the Court of Appeal.
In the judgment published on Monday, the Court of Appeal also ruled that both HPL and the estate's majority owners should equally share the legal costs for the second High Court hearing, as well as the Court of Appeal hearing. The costs for the second STB hearings were to be borne solely by the majority owners.
The Court of Appeal also made the unusual move of allowing 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.
Justice Rajah said the court was mindful that the significant costs incurred 'at every step of these bitterly fought, convoluted and labyrinthine proceedings' would have led some to forgo the appeal. 'We cannot lose sight of the fact that the non-appealing parties together have (with the appellants) been literally driven from pillar to post in their arduous efforts to protect their homes.'
Although there were 33 objectors to the sale at the start, 13 pursued the case in court, and five continued the matter all the way to the appeal, said one of the final objectors, Mr Hendra Gunawan, 53.
'We are happy the court has allowed us to protect our homes by giving this judgment,' said the investor.
But he said he was a bit disappointed because he was hoping to get more costs awarded to them.
He estimated that the sum he would finally get would not exceed more than 30 per cent of the amount he personally spent on the case from the start, although he did not give the exact amount spent.
Majority owner Mamata Kapildave Dave, 40, said she accepted the costs outcome as fair and was waiting for the sums to be worked out.
Showing posts with label Horizon Towers Saga. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Horizon Towers Saga. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Horizon Towers - Failed Deal Gets Owners $1.5m
Source : The Straits Times, April 22, 2009
HORIZON Towers owners may reap some $1.5 million from a failed en-bloc deal which in turn could help pay their legal bills.
HORIZON Towers owners may reap some $1.5 million from a failed en-bloc deal which in turn could help pay their legal bills. --PHOTO: ST
The sum represents the interest earned on the $50 million deposit paid by the would-be buyers when the $500 million deal was inked in 2007.
The deposit was paid when the initial option to purchase and sales pacts were signed. The deal was made between the condominium's sales committee on behalf of the majority owners, and property developer HPL and two partners.
The en-bloc deal derailed early this month after a handful of objectors fought all the way to the Court of Appeal, which ruled for them. The $50 million deposit is understood to have been returned to the would-be buyers. But the deal provided for the interest to be given to the sellers, probably including the minority objectors. Not all contracts spell out how to deal with the interest earned on the 10 per cent deposit from the option to purchase and sales agreements, which in this case was substantial, said lawyers.
But today's sales-savvy sellers are likely to insist the interest goes to them if a sales bid falls through, said lawyer Philip Fong. In disbursing the money, the sales committee would have to include the minority objectors, as the the Court of Appeal decision made clear the sale contract applied to all owners, said Mr Fong, a partner of Harry Elias Partnership.
It is not clear how far $1.5 million will offset legal costs, which have not been totalled up. Horizon Tower sales committee member Mamata Kapildave Dave, 40, said yesterday no decision had been made yet on how the 210 owners would deal with the $1.5 million while the court assesses legal fees.
The total costs in the long-standing case would include lawyers' fees for the initial 17-day Strata Titles Board hearings, two High Court appearances and the final Court of Appeal session.
A total of 173 majority owners have already paid some $2.6 million, or $15,000 each, while a group of three minority owners are reported to have coughed up some $1.5 million in lawyers' fees.
Meanwhile, lawyers from Allen & Gledhill, representing the failed buyers, are going to court today about a suit that has been brought against the sales committee. The suit was filed in 2007 and sought a declaration that the sales committee had allegedly not done all it could to make sure the sale went through.
According to court documents filed, the suit also sought damages for alleged breach of contract. It has been in abeyance since February, pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal's judgment, which was delivered earlier this month.
'They can either go ahead with the suit, amend the suit or drop it altogether,' said Ms Mamata.
'We are on the horizon, and there is sunrise and there is sunset.We hope in good faith everything goes right.'
HORIZON Towers owners may reap some $1.5 million from a failed en-bloc deal which in turn could help pay their legal bills.
HORIZON Towers owners may reap some $1.5 million from a failed en-bloc deal which in turn could help pay their legal bills. --PHOTO: STThe sum represents the interest earned on the $50 million deposit paid by the would-be buyers when the $500 million deal was inked in 2007.
The deposit was paid when the initial option to purchase and sales pacts were signed. The deal was made between the condominium's sales committee on behalf of the majority owners, and property developer HPL and two partners.
The en-bloc deal derailed early this month after a handful of objectors fought all the way to the Court of Appeal, which ruled for them. The $50 million deposit is understood to have been returned to the would-be buyers. But the deal provided for the interest to be given to the sellers, probably including the minority objectors. Not all contracts spell out how to deal with the interest earned on the 10 per cent deposit from the option to purchase and sales agreements, which in this case was substantial, said lawyers.
But today's sales-savvy sellers are likely to insist the interest goes to them if a sales bid falls through, said lawyer Philip Fong. In disbursing the money, the sales committee would have to include the minority objectors, as the the Court of Appeal decision made clear the sale contract applied to all owners, said Mr Fong, a partner of Harry Elias Partnership.
It is not clear how far $1.5 million will offset legal costs, which have not been totalled up. Horizon Tower sales committee member Mamata Kapildave Dave, 40, said yesterday no decision had been made yet on how the 210 owners would deal with the $1.5 million while the court assesses legal fees.
The total costs in the long-standing case would include lawyers' fees for the initial 17-day Strata Titles Board hearings, two High Court appearances and the final Court of Appeal session.
A total of 173 majority owners have already paid some $2.6 million, or $15,000 each, while a group of three minority owners are reported to have coughed up some $1.5 million in lawyers' fees.
Meanwhile, lawyers from Allen & Gledhill, representing the failed buyers, are going to court today about a suit that has been brought against the sales committee. The suit was filed in 2007 and sought a declaration that the sales committee had allegedly not done all it could to make sure the sale went through.
According to court documents filed, the suit also sought damages for alleged breach of contract. It has been in abeyance since February, pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal's judgment, which was delivered earlier this month.
'They can either go ahead with the suit, amend the suit or drop it altogether,' said Ms Mamata.
'We are on the horizon, and there is sunrise and there is sunset.We hope in good faith everything goes right.'
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Horizon Towers Saga - The Appeal Court Judgment
Source : The Straits Times, April 3, 2009
The Court of Appeal yesterday reversed the sale of Horizon Towers, ending a 2 1/2-year battle over the estate's collective sale. Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and V. K. Rajah found that the condo's sales committee had breached its duties to unit owners and that the Strata Titles Board (STB) and High Court judge Choo Han Teck had erred in allowing the sale. The original sales committee comprised chairman Arjun Samtani, secretary Wee Hian Siew, and members Tan Kah Gee, Henry Lim, Bharat Mandloi, Claude Reghenzani, Dr Chan Siew Chee, Shahrukh Marfatia and George Eapen. These are the main points of the judgment.
WHERE THE SALES COMMITTEE ERRED
# By not acting with due diligence and transparency in appointing the marketing agent, First Tree Properties, which has two shareholders, neither of whom is a licensed valuer. The appointment was done in haste and 'reflected a lack of conscientiousness';
# By failing to follow up on a higher offer for Horizon Towers made by Vineyard Holdings, a Hong Kong company;
# By not using the Vineyard offer as leverage in negotiations with Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL), the eventual buyer of the estate;
# By not getting advice from an independent property expert prior to the sale;
# By proceeding with the sale to HPL in 'undue haste' in a soaring property market;
# By ignoring conflicts of interest. Two of the sales committee members - Mr Samtani and Mr Tan - had bought additional units in Horizon Towers with the help of 'substantial' bank loans right before they were appointed to the committee. They did not disclose these purchases. First Tree was also eager to seal a deal before its mandate as marketing agent expired;
# By not consulting, or even updating, the majority owners on the sale, despite knowing that the property boom had pushed up the market value of the individual units and significantly eroded their estimated premiums from the collective sale.
WHERE THE STB ERRED
# By refusing to subpoena Mr Arjun Samtani to testify;
# By allowing the sales committee to assert 'legal privilege', that is, to not divulge the advice it had received from its lawyers;
# By not considering whether there was a possible conflict of interest in the sales committee members' purchase of additional units;
# By not asking whether the price was the best one 'reasonably obtainable';
# By concluding that the original sales committee had 'acted in good faith' in selling the property to HPL just because the committee had received and relied on legal advice.
WHERE JUSTICE CHOO HAN TECK OF THE HIGH COURT ERRED
# By taking a 'restricted view' of the duties of a Strata Titles Board in approving a collective sale;
# By deciding that the only issue to rule on was that of price, and that the STB had determined the price was fair.
The Court of Appeal yesterday reversed the sale of Horizon Towers, ending a 2 1/2-year battle over the estate's collective sale. Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and V. K. Rajah found that the condo's sales committee had breached its duties to unit owners and that the Strata Titles Board (STB) and High Court judge Choo Han Teck had erred in allowing the sale. The original sales committee comprised chairman Arjun Samtani, secretary Wee Hian Siew, and members Tan Kah Gee, Henry Lim, Bharat Mandloi, Claude Reghenzani, Dr Chan Siew Chee, Shahrukh Marfatia and George Eapen. These are the main points of the judgment.
WHERE THE SALES COMMITTEE ERRED
# By not acting with due diligence and transparency in appointing the marketing agent, First Tree Properties, which has two shareholders, neither of whom is a licensed valuer. The appointment was done in haste and 'reflected a lack of conscientiousness';
# By failing to follow up on a higher offer for Horizon Towers made by Vineyard Holdings, a Hong Kong company;
# By not using the Vineyard offer as leverage in negotiations with Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL), the eventual buyer of the estate;
# By not getting advice from an independent property expert prior to the sale;
# By proceeding with the sale to HPL in 'undue haste' in a soaring property market;
# By ignoring conflicts of interest. Two of the sales committee members - Mr Samtani and Mr Tan - had bought additional units in Horizon Towers with the help of 'substantial' bank loans right before they were appointed to the committee. They did not disclose these purchases. First Tree was also eager to seal a deal before its mandate as marketing agent expired;
# By not consulting, or even updating, the majority owners on the sale, despite knowing that the property boom had pushed up the market value of the individual units and significantly eroded their estimated premiums from the collective sale.
WHERE THE STB ERRED
# By refusing to subpoena Mr Arjun Samtani to testify;
# By allowing the sales committee to assert 'legal privilege', that is, to not divulge the advice it had received from its lawyers;
# By not considering whether there was a possible conflict of interest in the sales committee members' purchase of additional units;
# By not asking whether the price was the best one 'reasonably obtainable';
# By concluding that the original sales committee had 'acted in good faith' in selling the property to HPL just because the committee had received and relied on legal advice.
WHERE JUSTICE CHOO HAN TECK OF THE HIGH COURT ERRED
# By taking a 'restricted view' of the duties of a Strata Titles Board in approving a collective sale;
# By deciding that the only issue to rule on was that of price, and that the STB had determined the price was fair.
Court Quashes En Bloc Sale Of Horizon Towers
Source : The Business Times, April 3, 2009
Landmark ruling also redefines roles of sales committees, Strata Titles Board
The minority owners of Horizon Towers have finally won the fight to block the $500 million collective sale of the development, ending a battle that lasted more than two years.
The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed the en bloc sale after several owners appealed to it to throw out last July's High Court decision, which backed the sale of the property to Singapore-listed Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) and its partners Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority.
Yesterday's judgment is final - and means that the sale of Horizon Towers will not go through.
In the judgement, Justice V K Rajah also redefined the duties of a sales committee and the Strata Titles Board (STB) when dealing with collective sales. But some market watchers say that sales committees may find the new scope of duties difficult to carry out.
The judgment marks the first time that the Supreme Court has decided in favour of minority owners in a disputed en bloc sale, said the minority owners' lawyer Philip Fong, a partner with Harry Elias Partnership.
The Horizon Towers saga began in January 2007 when the majority owners accepted a price of just under $850 per square foot (psf) of gross floor area for the 99-year leasehold property in Leonie Hill.
But when the property market continued to boom after the deal was signed, many owners believed that the $500 million reserve price was too low. Residents who were against the sale argued that it was done in bad faith and said that a higher $510 million offer from Hong Kong firm Vineyard Holdings was not taken seriously.
STB and the High Court dismissed the minority owners' objections. The High Court decided that as long as STB finds that a purchase price is fair, it has fulfilled its duty and is entitled to approve an en bloc sale.
But yesterday, overturning the High Court and STB rulings, the Court of Appeal ruled that there were problems with the sale of Horizon Towers from the start. Justice Rajah said that the sales committee did not fulfil its duty because it did not secure the best price obtainable for the property.
In his judgment, he also spelled out the court's view of a sales committee's duties. Among other things, a sales committee is expected to follow up all expressions of interest and offers, and carry out sufficient investigations and due diligence to determine their genuineness. A sales committee is also tasked with creating competition between interested purchasers and 'waiting for the most propitious timing for the sale in order to obtain the best price'.
Likewise, Justice Rajah said that STB must play a pro-active role when it comes to disputed cases, rather than simply listening to the evidence and arguments of both sides and then ruling on their differences.
'Despite the reference to its 'mediation-arbitration' function, STB has a significant inquisitorial role to play,' he said. 'It is not confined to what is presented to it by the contending parties, but must seek out the facts whenever there is evidence that the SC (sales committee) has not disclosed everything about the transaction to STB.'
Market players welcomed the greater clarity on the duties of sales committees and STB, but said that the new guidelines could dampen the collective sale market. 'The imposition of the more defined duties and standard of conduct for a sales committee may deter owners from volunteering to serve on the committee,' said Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate.
Justice Rajah also pointed out that a primary objective of the collective sale scheme was to promote the rejuvenation of older estates and the optimal use of prime land to build more quality housing in land-scarce Singapore. But now, 'the lure of 'windfall profits' has been a siren song for many (especially absent landlords and speculators), to the detriment of those who do not want to lose their homes at any price', he said.
The Court of Appeal's ruling means that HPL and its partners will not be able to go ahead with their plan to build a 253-unit condo and eight detached houses on the site.
At $850 psf of gross floor area, the developers would have had to sell new units at about $1,500 psf to make a small profit - which might be possible for them to attain even in today's depressed property market.
The would-be buyers are not better off for having had the sale fall through, said one industry veteran. And likewise, the owners will get to keep their homes but will not get a much better price now than what HPL and its partners offered in 2007.
'At this stage, it does not appear that there is a clear winner or a major loser,' said the industry veteran.
Landmark ruling also redefines roles of sales committees, Strata Titles Board
The minority owners of Horizon Towers have finally won the fight to block the $500 million collective sale of the development, ending a battle that lasted more than two years.
The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed the en bloc sale after several owners appealed to it to throw out last July's High Court decision, which backed the sale of the property to Singapore-listed Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) and its partners Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority.
Yesterday's judgment is final - and means that the sale of Horizon Towers will not go through.
In the judgement, Justice V K Rajah also redefined the duties of a sales committee and the Strata Titles Board (STB) when dealing with collective sales. But some market watchers say that sales committees may find the new scope of duties difficult to carry out.
The judgment marks the first time that the Supreme Court has decided in favour of minority owners in a disputed en bloc sale, said the minority owners' lawyer Philip Fong, a partner with Harry Elias Partnership.
The Horizon Towers saga began in January 2007 when the majority owners accepted a price of just under $850 per square foot (psf) of gross floor area for the 99-year leasehold property in Leonie Hill.
But when the property market continued to boom after the deal was signed, many owners believed that the $500 million reserve price was too low. Residents who were against the sale argued that it was done in bad faith and said that a higher $510 million offer from Hong Kong firm Vineyard Holdings was not taken seriously.
STB and the High Court dismissed the minority owners' objections. The High Court decided that as long as STB finds that a purchase price is fair, it has fulfilled its duty and is entitled to approve an en bloc sale.
But yesterday, overturning the High Court and STB rulings, the Court of Appeal ruled that there were problems with the sale of Horizon Towers from the start. Justice Rajah said that the sales committee did not fulfil its duty because it did not secure the best price obtainable for the property.
In his judgment, he also spelled out the court's view of a sales committee's duties. Among other things, a sales committee is expected to follow up all expressions of interest and offers, and carry out sufficient investigations and due diligence to determine their genuineness. A sales committee is also tasked with creating competition between interested purchasers and 'waiting for the most propitious timing for the sale in order to obtain the best price'.
Likewise, Justice Rajah said that STB must play a pro-active role when it comes to disputed cases, rather than simply listening to the evidence and arguments of both sides and then ruling on their differences.
'Despite the reference to its 'mediation-arbitration' function, STB has a significant inquisitorial role to play,' he said. 'It is not confined to what is presented to it by the contending parties, but must seek out the facts whenever there is evidence that the SC (sales committee) has not disclosed everything about the transaction to STB.'
Market players welcomed the greater clarity on the duties of sales committees and STB, but said that the new guidelines could dampen the collective sale market. 'The imposition of the more defined duties and standard of conduct for a sales committee may deter owners from volunteering to serve on the committee,' said Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate.
Justice Rajah also pointed out that a primary objective of the collective sale scheme was to promote the rejuvenation of older estates and the optimal use of prime land to build more quality housing in land-scarce Singapore. But now, 'the lure of 'windfall profits' has been a siren song for many (especially absent landlords and speculators), to the detriment of those who do not want to lose their homes at any price', he said.
The Court of Appeal's ruling means that HPL and its partners will not be able to go ahead with their plan to build a 253-unit condo and eight detached houses on the site.
At $850 psf of gross floor area, the developers would have had to sell new units at about $1,500 psf to make a small profit - which might be possible for them to attain even in today's depressed property market.
The would-be buyers are not better off for having had the sale fall through, said one industry veteran. And likewise, the owners will get to keep their homes but will not get a much better price now than what HPL and its partners offered in 2007.
'At this stage, it does not appear that there is a clear winner or a major loser,' said the industry veteran.
Friday, April 3, 2009
It's Final: Horizon Towers Sale Is Off
Source : The Straits Times, April 03 2009
Surprise ruling vindicates stand of minority owners
THE Court of Appeal halted the contentious Horizon Towers collective sale once and for all yesterday with a hard-hitting ruling that singled out the estate's sales committee for scathing criticism.
One of Singapore's longest-running property disputes has ended with the Court of Appeal's hard-hitting ruling. -- ST PHOTO: JOSEPH NAIR.
The dramatic judgment caught many by surprise and vindicated the four sets of minority owners who opposed the sale from day one - about 3-1/2 years ago, when the idea was first mooted - and spent nearly $1.5 million in legal costs.
One of those owners, Mr Hendra Gunawan, told The Straits Times yesterday: 'I am very happy that at last we can protect our homes.'
'We can't do anything about it if 80 per cent agree to sell but they have to do it properly so that everyone's home will be sold at a proper price.'
Industry experts are also hailing the decision as a landmark judgment that will set clear parameters for en bloc deals.
Yesterday's ruling was clear in its condemnation of the way the en bloc process was conducted and was particularly critical of the estate's sales committee.
Among a litany of criticism, it pointed to the committee's failure to follow up on a higher offer for the estate, its undue haste in agreeing to a sale price in a rising market and its sloppy procedures in appointing a marketing agent and keeping owners up to speed on the transaction.
But perhaps the most serious censure was directed at its failure to take heed of a possible conflict of interest that arose when two owners bought additional units in the estate just before they were appointed to the sales committee.
'The sale committee's duty is to achieve the best price under the circumstances, and not just a fair price,' said Mr Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, which has handled many collective sales but not that of Horizon Towers.
The Strata Titles Board, which backed the sale, was also criticised for the way it took too much at face value - whether opinions on price or legal points - when it should have been more questioning. It was also rapped for not being more vigilant on the possible conflict of interest issue regarding sales committee members.
One immediate effect of the ruling is that one of Singapore's most drawn-out en bloc deals is finally over.
The sale of the Leonie Hill estate was first mooted in October 2005. The owners agreed to a reserve price of $500 million the following year, just before the dramatic run-up in the property market.
A deal was signed in January 2007 when the majority owners accepted a price of just below $850 per sq ft of gross floor area from Hotel Properties and its two partners.
The 199 owners of the 99-year leasehold estate would each have pocketed about $2.3 million while the 11 penthouse owners would each have received around $4 million to more than $6 million.
A series of court challenges followed. Even some majority owners turned against the deal when they saw how the soaring market had made their sale price look like a giveaway.
The property market has since slumped and the en bloc market has dried up.
'On paper today, the owners would have lost out, but probably by just 10 per cent,' said a property expert who declined to be named.
Only a handful of the minority owners who objected to the sale fought on until the end, spending millions along the way.
Mr Ng Eng Ghee, Mr Gunawan and his wife Sulistiowati Kusumo and Madam Ong Sioe Hong were represented by Harry Elias while Mr Rudy Darmawan represented himself, his wife and aunt at the hearing.
Madam Ong said her group incurred expenses of more than $1.5 million. Another group of objectors - who fought against the sale earlier - has spent around $1 million. Property industry experts said yesterday's landmark ruling has struck a decisive blow for transparency.
'This is the first time the court of appeal has held in favour of the minority owners,' said Mr Phillip Fong, a partner of Harry Elias Partnership, which represented four minority owners.
'There's now substantial clarity on the extent of the duties of the sale committee.'
Credo's Mr Singh said: 'The judgment is undoubtedly significant. It clarifies what constitutes, for example, good faith and conflicts of interest.'
THE OBJECTORS
FOUR sets of minority owners lasted the full distance to see yesterday's final victory in overturning the Horizon Towers sale.
Those left standing after the marathon battle were Madam Ong Sioe Hong, Mr Hendra Gunawan and his wife, Mr Ng Eng Ghee, and Mr Rudy Darmawan, his wife and aunt.
Mr Darmawan, an Indonesian living here, represented himself, his wife and his aunt at the Court of Appeal. He is believed to be an executive at a multinational corporation.
Mr Gunawan, another Indonesian living here, runs his family's manufacturing business in Indonesia. The 53-year-old and his wife Sulistiowati Kusumo, and two sons have lived in Horizon Towers for eight years.
Madam Ong is the managing director of the department store operator Metro and the sister of Mr Jopie Ong, boss of Metro Holdings. Their father is Metro founder Ong Tjoe Kim.
Madam Ong, her husband and their two sons have lived in Horizon Towers for more than 20 years.
Retiree Mr Ng, was a property developer and is listed as the director of companies such as Hi-Rise Builders and Bideford Realty.
The long-running and costly legal battle saw many minority owners fall by the wayside.
Two out of nine sets of minority owners - a couple representing themselves and a foreign firm - had dropped out of the fight by the time the case went to the High Court in March last year.
By the time the case got to the Court of Appeal stage, more owners had dropped out.
VERY HAPPY
'We are very, very, very happy that we get to keep our home. All the minority homeowners are very passionate in working together towards keeping our home. We are also fortunate to have very professional and passionate legal counsels.'
Madam Ong Sioe Hong, one of the four appellants to the Court of Appeal
VINDICATED
'I had to pinch myself a few times. These three years have been quite an emotional rollercoaster. The minority owners are happy that we have been vindicated in the fight for our homes. For us, the price was never an issue.'
Ms J. Tan, a homeowner who objected to the sale
OVER AT LAST
'As consenting parties, obviously we wanted the sale. What is disappointing is that it took that long (to reach a conclusion). So much time and money has been spent on this. At least the last two months' anxiety is over. Whichever way it goes you have to accept it and move on.'
Mr Bharat Mandloi, 49, a commodities business director, homeowner and resident
PEACEFUL PLACE
'Together in Horizon Towers we always had a peaceful environment (throughout the proceedings), and it's still a wonderful place to live. I feel that justice has been done to what the minority objectors raised.'
Ms Mamata, 40, a real estate agent and Horizon Towers homeowner
FINE WITH VERDICT
'I am fine with the verdict. I have a great apartment and I will continue to live in it.'
Mr Anil Ahuja, 46, who lives in a penthouse
Surprise ruling vindicates stand of minority owners
THE Court of Appeal halted the contentious Horizon Towers collective sale once and for all yesterday with a hard-hitting ruling that singled out the estate's sales committee for scathing criticism.
One of Singapore's longest-running property disputes has ended with the Court of Appeal's hard-hitting ruling. -- ST PHOTO: JOSEPH NAIR.The dramatic judgment caught many by surprise and vindicated the four sets of minority owners who opposed the sale from day one - about 3-1/2 years ago, when the idea was first mooted - and spent nearly $1.5 million in legal costs.
One of those owners, Mr Hendra Gunawan, told The Straits Times yesterday: 'I am very happy that at last we can protect our homes.'
'We can't do anything about it if 80 per cent agree to sell but they have to do it properly so that everyone's home will be sold at a proper price.'
Industry experts are also hailing the decision as a landmark judgment that will set clear parameters for en bloc deals.
Yesterday's ruling was clear in its condemnation of the way the en bloc process was conducted and was particularly critical of the estate's sales committee.
Among a litany of criticism, it pointed to the committee's failure to follow up on a higher offer for the estate, its undue haste in agreeing to a sale price in a rising market and its sloppy procedures in appointing a marketing agent and keeping owners up to speed on the transaction.
But perhaps the most serious censure was directed at its failure to take heed of a possible conflict of interest that arose when two owners bought additional units in the estate just before they were appointed to the sales committee.
'The sale committee's duty is to achieve the best price under the circumstances, and not just a fair price,' said Mr Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, which has handled many collective sales but not that of Horizon Towers.
The Strata Titles Board, which backed the sale, was also criticised for the way it took too much at face value - whether opinions on price or legal points - when it should have been more questioning. It was also rapped for not being more vigilant on the possible conflict of interest issue regarding sales committee members.
One immediate effect of the ruling is that one of Singapore's most drawn-out en bloc deals is finally over.
The sale of the Leonie Hill estate was first mooted in October 2005. The owners agreed to a reserve price of $500 million the following year, just before the dramatic run-up in the property market.
A deal was signed in January 2007 when the majority owners accepted a price of just below $850 per sq ft of gross floor area from Hotel Properties and its two partners.
The 199 owners of the 99-year leasehold estate would each have pocketed about $2.3 million while the 11 penthouse owners would each have received around $4 million to more than $6 million.
A series of court challenges followed. Even some majority owners turned against the deal when they saw how the soaring market had made their sale price look like a giveaway.
The property market has since slumped and the en bloc market has dried up.
'On paper today, the owners would have lost out, but probably by just 10 per cent,' said a property expert who declined to be named.
Only a handful of the minority owners who objected to the sale fought on until the end, spending millions along the way.
Mr Ng Eng Ghee, Mr Gunawan and his wife Sulistiowati Kusumo and Madam Ong Sioe Hong were represented by Harry Elias while Mr Rudy Darmawan represented himself, his wife and aunt at the hearing.
Madam Ong said her group incurred expenses of more than $1.5 million. Another group of objectors - who fought against the sale earlier - has spent around $1 million. Property industry experts said yesterday's landmark ruling has struck a decisive blow for transparency.
'This is the first time the court of appeal has held in favour of the minority owners,' said Mr Phillip Fong, a partner of Harry Elias Partnership, which represented four minority owners.
'There's now substantial clarity on the extent of the duties of the sale committee.'
Credo's Mr Singh said: 'The judgment is undoubtedly significant. It clarifies what constitutes, for example, good faith and conflicts of interest.'
THE OBJECTORS
FOUR sets of minority owners lasted the full distance to see yesterday's final victory in overturning the Horizon Towers sale.
Those left standing after the marathon battle were Madam Ong Sioe Hong, Mr Hendra Gunawan and his wife, Mr Ng Eng Ghee, and Mr Rudy Darmawan, his wife and aunt.
Mr Darmawan, an Indonesian living here, represented himself, his wife and his aunt at the Court of Appeal. He is believed to be an executive at a multinational corporation.
Mr Gunawan, another Indonesian living here, runs his family's manufacturing business in Indonesia. The 53-year-old and his wife Sulistiowati Kusumo, and two sons have lived in Horizon Towers for eight years.
Madam Ong is the managing director of the department store operator Metro and the sister of Mr Jopie Ong, boss of Metro Holdings. Their father is Metro founder Ong Tjoe Kim.
Madam Ong, her husband and their two sons have lived in Horizon Towers for more than 20 years.
Retiree Mr Ng, was a property developer and is listed as the director of companies such as Hi-Rise Builders and Bideford Realty.
The long-running and costly legal battle saw many minority owners fall by the wayside.
Two out of nine sets of minority owners - a couple representing themselves and a foreign firm - had dropped out of the fight by the time the case went to the High Court in March last year.
By the time the case got to the Court of Appeal stage, more owners had dropped out.
VERY HAPPY
'We are very, very, very happy that we get to keep our home. All the minority homeowners are very passionate in working together towards keeping our home. We are also fortunate to have very professional and passionate legal counsels.'
Madam Ong Sioe Hong, one of the four appellants to the Court of Appeal
VINDICATED
'I had to pinch myself a few times. These three years have been quite an emotional rollercoaster. The minority owners are happy that we have been vindicated in the fight for our homes. For us, the price was never an issue.'
Ms J. Tan, a homeowner who objected to the sale
OVER AT LAST
'As consenting parties, obviously we wanted the sale. What is disappointing is that it took that long (to reach a conclusion). So much time and money has been spent on this. At least the last two months' anxiety is over. Whichever way it goes you have to accept it and move on.'
Mr Bharat Mandloi, 49, a commodities business director, homeowner and resident
PEACEFUL PLACE
'Together in Horizon Towers we always had a peaceful environment (throughout the proceedings), and it's still a wonderful place to live. I feel that justice has been done to what the minority objectors raised.'
Ms Mamata, 40, a real estate agent and Horizon Towers homeowner
FINE WITH VERDICT
'I am fine with the verdict. I have a great apartment and I will continue to live in it.'
Mr Anil Ahuja, 46, who lives in a penthouse
四业主最后上诉得直 浩然大厦集体出售告吹
Source : 《联合早报》Apr 03, 2009
过去两年搞得满城风雨的浩然大厦（Horizon Towers）集体出售官司，结局出现戏剧性变化，四名少数业主的最后上诉得直，集体出售交易告吹。
上诉庭法官维克拉惹昨天代表最高法院上诉庭，发表长达122页的判词，推翻了分层地契局于2007年12月7日批准集体出售的裁决，让这场在分层地契局和高庭纷扰了近两年的官司终于有个了结。这相信是本地历来最长的集体出售官司。
为保住家园做最后一搏，浩然大厦的四名少数业主虽一再吃败仗，但不放弃，2007和2008年期间两度告上分层地契局和高庭，并于今年2月3日向最高法院提出，浩然大厦第一任销售委员会有两人在受委前贷款购各额外单位作为投资，因此希望能快速达成交易，而没有尽力争取最好的售价。
当时，由陈锡强大法官、潘文龙法官和维克拉惹法官组成的最高法院三司要求辩方律师呈交这三名委员额外购买的单位的房屋转让文件。
维克拉惹法官在判词中指出，浩然大厦第一任销售委员会主席Arjun Samtani在委任房地产代理前与女儿贷款了100万元，以135万元购买了另一个单位；另一名销售委员会成员陈家基（人名译音）在当时也贷款了超过90万元，以120万元添购另一单位。不过，两人不曾公开它们添购额外单位的事宜。
除了这个利益上的冲突外，在审查分层地契局至高庭的呈堂证据和证词后，维克拉惹法官发现，第一任销售委员会作为委托人并没有尽法律职责，在委任代理方面没有尽职调查，过程也不透明，并在没有法律和道德约束下仓促达成交易出售，尽管楼价节节攀升，但销售委员会在决定出售时并没有进一步征询同意出售业主的意见。
维克拉惹法官也指出分层地契局和高庭法官朱汉德判决有误。
他说，分层地契局有义务扮演积极调查所有反对出售的申请和理由，不限于售价是否合理以及呈堂证据，若发现或相信销售委员会没有将作出充足披露，也应该积极找出真相，而不应该把证明错失的重担落在少数业主上。
此外，维克拉惹法官也认为，分层地契局对“诚信”（good faith）采取过于狭窄的诠释，才会裁决销售委员既然获律师建议接受献议，证明交易有诚信。
他说：“虽然委托人在他的能力和认知以外的事项上可以向专人寻求建议，但最终他必须诚心、负责任和合理地做出决定。”
至于高庭法官朱汉德的判决，维克拉惹法官表示，他狭窄地看待分层地契约局在批准集体出售的职责，以致他误认为眼前的问题与价格有关，而分层地契局既然已裁决售价合理，而决定是基于事实，因此宣判少数业主上诉败诉。
少数业主之一的吴家越告诉本报，少数业主过去两年尝试证明维克拉惹法官所提出的问题，最终获得正视，令他感到非常欣慰。他说：“正义终于得到了伸张。”
位于利安尼山(Leonie Hill)的浩然大厦，占地20万4742平方英尺，拥有210个单位，属于99年地契，目前剩下70年。
本地上市公司旅店置业是在2007年1月22日，连同两家外国投资基金(Morgan Stanley及Qatar Investments)组成HPPL财团，斥资5亿元买下浩然大厦，售价相等于每平方英尺835元。199个面积较小的单位原本可各获赔230万元，而11个顶层豪宅(penthouse）则原本可获400万至628万元。
案件虽审结，但这场风波也许不会就此告终，买方HPPL曾表示会考虑采取法律行动向业主追究违约责任。
对此，现任销售委员会主席林成和表示，同意出售业主将接受法庭的决定，之前已尽所能争取让项目出售，问心无愧，而判词中的指责都是针对第一任销售委员会。
本报多次尝试联络旅店置业集团执行董事林先禄，但他没有回应。公司昨天下午发表文告，表示因最高法院的判决，浩然大厦的收购行动将不会进行，而最高法院的裁决是最后决定，不能再翻案。
市场人士：今后要进行集体出售可难了
市场人士指出，浩然大厦案件判决意味今后要进行集体出售更为艰难，销售委员会和分层地契局的职责将加重。
Bernard & Rada律师事务所的董事符春燕受访时表示，如果浩然大厦较早下判，许多告上分层地契局和高庭的集体出售案件可能无法通过。
处理许多集体出售案件的符春燕说：“浩然大厦集体出售官司的裁决为集体出售创下新里程碑，主要因为这场官司倍受瞩目，而且问题和不足的地方较过去严重。此外，从判词所见，法官发现，过去10年，一些集体出售项目屋龄还蛮新，不急需重建或翻新，但因为价格飙升而集体出售，这么做很浪费，对于不愿失去家园的人也很不利。”
她指出，维克拉惹法官在浩然大厦的判决清楚列出销售委员会和分层地契局的职责，要求比过去苛刻，同时也澄清了“诚信”的定义。
“过去分层地契局在裁决交易是否缺乏诚信都是根据售价和赔偿分配。如今，最高法院在判词中划定分层地契局有义务扮演积极调查所有反对出售的申请和理由，不限于售价是否合理以及呈堂证据。”
在这样的情况下，符春燕表示，由于缺乏诚信的范围扩大了，提出反对者可提出更多反对理由，分层地契局日后在审理集体出售案件时需花更长的时间，以便究出任何可能出现问题的地方以及集合证据。
考虑到分层地契局的判官都是属义务性质，更繁重的工作和职责可能会导致人们不愿献身。
同样的，由于责任更重大，符春燕认为，业主日后可能不愿加入销售委员会，而在没有人领导出售交易下，集体出售可能从此销声匿迹。
“在判词中，销售委员会被等同于委托人，责任非常重大，需要做的事情也非常多。加上2007年10月新生效且更严格的分层地契法令，集体出售可能从此销声匿迹。”
新分层地契法令于2007年10月4日生效，律政部对旧有条例修订了35处，包括所有业主必须在律师见证下签署集体出售协议书，并在签署协议后将有五天的“冷静期”等。
在过去几年负责多个集体出售项目的房地产代理商齐乐行(Credo)董事经理卡南吉星(Karamjit Singh）同意，在判词和新法令下，较少业主会自愿形成销售委员会，今后要进行集体出售更为艰难。
不过，他指出，这个问题在大型项目中较为棘手，小型项目所受的影响不大。
卡南吉星说：“判词重新规划和澄清销售委员会的职责，以及什么是诚信和利益冲突的事项。这让我们清楚了解，作为代理我们不只要争取合理的售价，而是最好的售价。”
过去两年搞得满城风雨的浩然大厦（Horizon Towers）集体出售官司，结局出现戏剧性变化，四名少数业主的最后上诉得直，集体出售交易告吹。
上诉庭法官维克拉惹昨天代表最高法院上诉庭，发表长达122页的判词，推翻了分层地契局于2007年12月7日批准集体出售的裁决，让这场在分层地契局和高庭纷扰了近两年的官司终于有个了结。这相信是本地历来最长的集体出售官司。
为保住家园做最后一搏，浩然大厦的四名少数业主虽一再吃败仗，但不放弃，2007和2008年期间两度告上分层地契局和高庭，并于今年2月3日向最高法院提出，浩然大厦第一任销售委员会有两人在受委前贷款购各额外单位作为投资，因此希望能快速达成交易，而没有尽力争取最好的售价。
当时，由陈锡强大法官、潘文龙法官和维克拉惹法官组成的最高法院三司要求辩方律师呈交这三名委员额外购买的单位的房屋转让文件。
维克拉惹法官在判词中指出，浩然大厦第一任销售委员会主席Arjun Samtani在委任房地产代理前与女儿贷款了100万元，以135万元购买了另一个单位；另一名销售委员会成员陈家基（人名译音）在当时也贷款了超过90万元，以120万元添购另一单位。不过，两人不曾公开它们添购额外单位的事宜。
除了这个利益上的冲突外，在审查分层地契局至高庭的呈堂证据和证词后，维克拉惹法官发现，第一任销售委员会作为委托人并没有尽法律职责，在委任代理方面没有尽职调查，过程也不透明，并在没有法律和道德约束下仓促达成交易出售，尽管楼价节节攀升，但销售委员会在决定出售时并没有进一步征询同意出售业主的意见。
维克拉惹法官也指出分层地契局和高庭法官朱汉德判决有误。
他说，分层地契局有义务扮演积极调查所有反对出售的申请和理由，不限于售价是否合理以及呈堂证据，若发现或相信销售委员会没有将作出充足披露，也应该积极找出真相，而不应该把证明错失的重担落在少数业主上。
此外，维克拉惹法官也认为，分层地契局对“诚信”（good faith）采取过于狭窄的诠释，才会裁决销售委员既然获律师建议接受献议，证明交易有诚信。
他说：“虽然委托人在他的能力和认知以外的事项上可以向专人寻求建议，但最终他必须诚心、负责任和合理地做出决定。”
至于高庭法官朱汉德的判决，维克拉惹法官表示，他狭窄地看待分层地契约局在批准集体出售的职责，以致他误认为眼前的问题与价格有关，而分层地契局既然已裁决售价合理，而决定是基于事实，因此宣判少数业主上诉败诉。
少数业主之一的吴家越告诉本报，少数业主过去两年尝试证明维克拉惹法官所提出的问题，最终获得正视，令他感到非常欣慰。他说：“正义终于得到了伸张。”
位于利安尼山(Leonie Hill)的浩然大厦，占地20万4742平方英尺，拥有210个单位，属于99年地契，目前剩下70年。
本地上市公司旅店置业是在2007年1月22日，连同两家外国投资基金(Morgan Stanley及Qatar Investments)组成HPPL财团，斥资5亿元买下浩然大厦，售价相等于每平方英尺835元。199个面积较小的单位原本可各获赔230万元，而11个顶层豪宅(penthouse）则原本可获400万至628万元。
案件虽审结，但这场风波也许不会就此告终，买方HPPL曾表示会考虑采取法律行动向业主追究违约责任。
对此，现任销售委员会主席林成和表示，同意出售业主将接受法庭的决定，之前已尽所能争取让项目出售，问心无愧，而判词中的指责都是针对第一任销售委员会。
本报多次尝试联络旅店置业集团执行董事林先禄，但他没有回应。公司昨天下午发表文告，表示因最高法院的判决，浩然大厦的收购行动将不会进行，而最高法院的裁决是最后决定，不能再翻案。
市场人士：今后要进行集体出售可难了
市场人士指出，浩然大厦案件判决意味今后要进行集体出售更为艰难，销售委员会和分层地契局的职责将加重。
Bernard & Rada律师事务所的董事符春燕受访时表示，如果浩然大厦较早下判，许多告上分层地契局和高庭的集体出售案件可能无法通过。
处理许多集体出售案件的符春燕说：“浩然大厦集体出售官司的裁决为集体出售创下新里程碑，主要因为这场官司倍受瞩目，而且问题和不足的地方较过去严重。此外，从判词所见，法官发现，过去10年，一些集体出售项目屋龄还蛮新，不急需重建或翻新，但因为价格飙升而集体出售，这么做很浪费，对于不愿失去家园的人也很不利。”
她指出，维克拉惹法官在浩然大厦的判决清楚列出销售委员会和分层地契局的职责，要求比过去苛刻，同时也澄清了“诚信”的定义。
“过去分层地契局在裁决交易是否缺乏诚信都是根据售价和赔偿分配。如今，最高法院在判词中划定分层地契局有义务扮演积极调查所有反对出售的申请和理由，不限于售价是否合理以及呈堂证据。”
在这样的情况下，符春燕表示，由于缺乏诚信的范围扩大了，提出反对者可提出更多反对理由，分层地契局日后在审理集体出售案件时需花更长的时间，以便究出任何可能出现问题的地方以及集合证据。
考虑到分层地契局的判官都是属义务性质，更繁重的工作和职责可能会导致人们不愿献身。
同样的，由于责任更重大，符春燕认为，业主日后可能不愿加入销售委员会，而在没有人领导出售交易下，集体出售可能从此销声匿迹。
“在判词中，销售委员会被等同于委托人，责任非常重大，需要做的事情也非常多。加上2007年10月新生效且更严格的分层地契法令，集体出售可能从此销声匿迹。”
新分层地契法令于2007年10月4日生效，律政部对旧有条例修订了35处，包括所有业主必须在律师见证下签署集体出售协议书，并在签署协议后将有五天的“冷静期”等。
在过去几年负责多个集体出售项目的房地产代理商齐乐行(Credo)董事经理卡南吉星(Karamjit Singh）同意，在判词和新法令下，较少业主会自愿形成销售委员会，今后要进行集体出售更为艰难。
不过，他指出，这个问题在大型项目中较为棘手，小型项目所受的影响不大。
卡南吉星说：“判词重新规划和澄清销售委员会的职责，以及什么是诚信和利益冲突的事项。这让我们清楚了解，作为代理我们不只要争取合理的售价，而是最好的售价。”
En Bloc Sale Of Horizon Towers Falls Through
Source : Channel NewsAsia, 02 April 2009
A group of homeowners has finally won the fight to keep their condominiums, ending a two-year legal saga.
In an unprecedented move, the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of owners who objected to the S$500 million en bloc sale of Horizon Towers. The Leonie Road condominium was to have been sold in 2007 to Hotel Properties and its partners.
Had the en bloc sale gone through, owners of its 199 units would have earned S$2.3 million each, while 11 penthouse owners would have received about S$4 million each.
In its judgement, the court said the Strata Titles Board, which approved the sale, had not done enough to investigate when objections were raised.
It also said that the sales committee was not transparent when it did not pursue a higher possible price offered by another buyer.
The lawyer, acting on behalf of the minority owners, said the judgement enhances existing laws which require sales committee members to be more transparent.
Philip Fong, partner, Harry Elias Partnership, said: "This particular judgement actually deals with specific aspects such as if there's a potential conflict of interest, when sales committee members have owned additional units – should they disclose or not disclose that fact.
"The fact that there's a higher offer and there are changing market conditions, should they go back to the subsidiary proprietors? All these make it very clear that the committee is to act in the interests of all subsidiary proprietors and not the majority."
When asked how they feel about the outcome, a spokesperson for the majority owners said it is not a case of whether they are happy or unhappy, but it is a decision they have to honour.
Channel NewsAsia understands that some homeowners have spent up to S$30,000 each in lawyers' fees.
Market-watchers said the outcome would affect homeowners who might have purchased other properties. These owners are still likely to be able to sell their units, but at a marginally lower price of about S$800 per square foot, compared to the S$850 per square foot agreed in the en bloc sale.
Observers said the case and the Court of Appeal's unprecedented decision will set a benchmark for other similar cases in the future. - CNA/so
A group of homeowners has finally won the fight to keep their condominiums, ending a two-year legal saga.
In an unprecedented move, the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of owners who objected to the S$500 million en bloc sale of Horizon Towers. The Leonie Road condominium was to have been sold in 2007 to Hotel Properties and its partners. Had the en bloc sale gone through, owners of its 199 units would have earned S$2.3 million each, while 11 penthouse owners would have received about S$4 million each.
In its judgement, the court said the Strata Titles Board, which approved the sale, had not done enough to investigate when objections were raised.
It also said that the sales committee was not transparent when it did not pursue a higher possible price offered by another buyer.
The lawyer, acting on behalf of the minority owners, said the judgement enhances existing laws which require sales committee members to be more transparent.
Philip Fong, partner, Harry Elias Partnership, said: "This particular judgement actually deals with specific aspects such as if there's a potential conflict of interest, when sales committee members have owned additional units – should they disclose or not disclose that fact.
"The fact that there's a higher offer and there are changing market conditions, should they go back to the subsidiary proprietors? All these make it very clear that the committee is to act in the interests of all subsidiary proprietors and not the majority."
When asked how they feel about the outcome, a spokesperson for the majority owners said it is not a case of whether they are happy or unhappy, but it is a decision they have to honour.
Channel NewsAsia understands that some homeowners have spent up to S$30,000 each in lawyers' fees.
Market-watchers said the outcome would affect homeowners who might have purchased other properties. These owners are still likely to be able to sell their units, but at a marginally lower price of about S$800 per square foot, compared to the S$850 per square foot agreed in the en bloc sale.
Observers said the case and the Court of Appeal's unprecedented decision will set a benchmark for other similar cases in the future. - CNA/so
HORIZON TOWERS COLLECTIVE SALE SAGA - No Go For En Bloc Sale
Source : The Straits Times, April 2, 2009
THE Court of Appeal halted the contentious Horizon Towers collective sale once and for all on Thursday with a hard-hitting ruling that singled out the estate's sales committee for scathing criticism.
Horizon Towers at Leonie Hill. -- ST PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIA
The dramatic judgement caught many by surprise and vindicated the four minority owners who opposed the sale from day one - almost three years ago - and spent nearly $1.5 million in legal costs.
One of those owners, Mr Hendra Gunawan, told The Straits Times on Thursday: 'I am very happy that at last we can protect our homes.'
'We can't do anything about it if 80 per cent agrees to sell but they have to do it properly so that everyone's home will be sold at a proper price.'
Industry experts are also hailing the decision as a landmark judgement that will set clear parameters for en bloc deals.
Thursday's ruling was clear in its condemnation of the way the en bloc process was conducted and was particularly critical of the estate's sales committee.
It said the committee had breached its duties as a fiduciary agent for all owners, including minority ones.
Among a litany of criticism, it pointed to the committee's failure to follow up on a higher offer for the estate, its undue haste in agreeing to a sale price in a rising market and its sloppy procedures in appointing a marketing agent and keeping owners up to speed on the transaction.
But perhaps the serious censure was directed at its failure to take heed of a possible conflict of interest that arose when two owners bought additional units in the estate just before they were appointed to the sales committee.
'The sale committee's duty is to achieve the best price under the circumstances, and not just a fair price,' said Mr Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, which has handled many collective sales but not Horizon Towers.
Read the full report in Friday's edition of The Straits Times.
THE Court of Appeal halted the contentious Horizon Towers collective sale once and for all on Thursday with a hard-hitting ruling that singled out the estate's sales committee for scathing criticism.
Horizon Towers at Leonie Hill. -- ST PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIAThe dramatic judgement caught many by surprise and vindicated the four minority owners who opposed the sale from day one - almost three years ago - and spent nearly $1.5 million in legal costs.
One of those owners, Mr Hendra Gunawan, told The Straits Times on Thursday: 'I am very happy that at last we can protect our homes.'
'We can't do anything about it if 80 per cent agrees to sell but they have to do it properly so that everyone's home will be sold at a proper price.'
Industry experts are also hailing the decision as a landmark judgement that will set clear parameters for en bloc deals.
Thursday's ruling was clear in its condemnation of the way the en bloc process was conducted and was particularly critical of the estate's sales committee.
It said the committee had breached its duties as a fiduciary agent for all owners, including minority ones.
Among a litany of criticism, it pointed to the committee's failure to follow up on a higher offer for the estate, its undue haste in agreeing to a sale price in a rising market and its sloppy procedures in appointing a marketing agent and keeping owners up to speed on the transaction.
But perhaps the serious censure was directed at its failure to take heed of a possible conflict of interest that arose when two owners bought additional units in the estate just before they were appointed to the sales committee.
'The sale committee's duty is to achieve the best price under the circumstances, and not just a fair price,' said Mr Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, which has handled many collective sales but not Horizon Towers.
Read the full report in Friday's edition of The Straits Times.
Horizon Towers Sale Won't Go Ahead
Source : The Business Times, April 2, 2009
After a protracted battle that lasted more than two years, the minority owners of Horizon Towers have finally gotten their wish - the $500 million collective sale of the property to Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) and its partners has been called off.
Singapore's Court of Appeal on Thursday dismissed the en bloc sale after four owners appealed to it to throw out a High Court decision handed down last July that backed the property's sale of the property to HPL and partners Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority.
The Court of Appeal's decision is the final decision on the matter, which means that the acquisition of the property will not proceed.
After a protracted battle that lasted more than two years, the minority owners of Horizon Towers have finally gotten their wish - the $500 million collective sale of the property to Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) and its partners has been called off.
Singapore's Court of Appeal on Thursday dismissed the en bloc sale after four owners appealed to it to throw out a High Court decision handed down last July that backed the property's sale of the property to HPL and partners Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority.The Court of Appeal's decision is the final decision on the matter, which means that the acquisition of the property will not proceed.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Horizon Towers: 2-Year Battle To Kill Deal Will End On Friday
Source : The Straits Times, Feb 4, 2009
ONE of the most protracted en-bloc sale disputes in years entered its final act yesterday when dissenters of the Horizon Towers deal opened their last-ditch court bid to kill the deal.
Horizon Towers was sold at just under $850 psf. An analyst says the $500m tag remains reasonable. -- ST FILE PHOTO
The four owners want the Court of Appeal to throw out a decision handed down last July that backed the $500 million sale of the property to Hotel Properties (HPL) and its partners, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority.
Objectors have been fighting for two years to have the deal overturned - a battle that has ridden right through the market slump, its boom and now back into the downcycle.
Their key objection is the loss of their homes, particularly at what they see as a giveaway price and by a process they feel was badly handled.
Owner Rudy Darmawan, who is representing himself in court, told the judges: 'I am here because I want to protect my home.'
Retiree Vincent Wong, 65, said: 'We are not here to profit...We are really fighting for our homes.'
The saga began in January 2007 when the majority owners accepted a price of just under $850 per sq ft (psf) of gross floor area for the 99-year leasehold estate in Leonie Hill. The 199 apartment owners would each have pocketed about $2.3 million while the 11 penthouse owners would have received at least $4 million each.
But when the property market began climbing after the deal was signed, many owners believed their $500 million reserve price was too low.
A series of court challenges culminated last July when the High Court dismissed a contention by sale objectors that the deal had been done in bad faith.
Yesterday, the objectors again argued that point during a hearing involving Senior Counsel. They said a higher offer of $510 million from Hong Kong firm Vineyard Holdings was not taken seriously.
About 50 people, including residents and HPL executive director Christopher Lim, were in the gallery.
The court will hand down its judgment on Friday.
HPL has just obtained provisional permission to turn the Horizon Towers site into 253 flats and eight detached houses.
So far, its sale price has held up. Credo Real Estate executive director Tan Hong Boon believes the $500 million price tag remains reasonable - at least as far as the buyer is concerned.
'They can break even at $1,300 to $1,400 psf and are still able to make a profit when the market recovers,' he said.
ONE of the most protracted en-bloc sale disputes in years entered its final act yesterday when dissenters of the Horizon Towers deal opened their last-ditch court bid to kill the deal.
Horizon Towers was sold at just under $850 psf. An analyst says the $500m tag remains reasonable. -- ST FILE PHOTOThe four owners want the Court of Appeal to throw out a decision handed down last July that backed the $500 million sale of the property to Hotel Properties (HPL) and its partners, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority.
Objectors have been fighting for two years to have the deal overturned - a battle that has ridden right through the market slump, its boom and now back into the downcycle.
Their key objection is the loss of their homes, particularly at what they see as a giveaway price and by a process they feel was badly handled.
Owner Rudy Darmawan, who is representing himself in court, told the judges: 'I am here because I want to protect my home.'
Retiree Vincent Wong, 65, said: 'We are not here to profit...We are really fighting for our homes.'
The saga began in January 2007 when the majority owners accepted a price of just under $850 per sq ft (psf) of gross floor area for the 99-year leasehold estate in Leonie Hill. The 199 apartment owners would each have pocketed about $2.3 million while the 11 penthouse owners would have received at least $4 million each.
But when the property market began climbing after the deal was signed, many owners believed their $500 million reserve price was too low.
A series of court challenges culminated last July when the High Court dismissed a contention by sale objectors that the deal had been done in bad faith.
Yesterday, the objectors again argued that point during a hearing involving Senior Counsel. They said a higher offer of $510 million from Hong Kong firm Vineyard Holdings was not taken seriously.
About 50 people, including residents and HPL executive director Christopher Lim, were in the gallery.
The court will hand down its judgment on Friday.
HPL has just obtained provisional permission to turn the Horizon Towers site into 253 flats and eight detached houses.
So far, its sale price has held up. Credo Real Estate executive director Tan Hong Boon believes the $500 million price tag remains reasonable - at least as far as the buyer is concerned.
'They can break even at $1,300 to $1,400 psf and are still able to make a profit when the market recovers,' he said.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Appeal Against Horizon Towers Sale Dismissed
Source : The Straits Times, July 18, 2008
High Court ruling clears the way for $500m collective sale that was inked 1-1/2 years ago
THE drawn-out battle over the $500 million collective sale of Horizon Towers has moved one step closer to a conclusion after the High Court threw out an appeal by objecting owners.
Yesterday's ruling means the sale of the Leonie Hill estate, first inked in January last year, can proceed - unless the objectors pursue one final possible avenue of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Some are considering this option.
The case marks a win for Mr K. Shanmugam in his final appearance as a litigator on April 30 before becoming Law Minister. He appeared before High Court Justice Choo Han Teck on behalf of the buyers, Hotel Properties (HPL) and its two partners.
HPL executive director Christopher Lim said: 'We hope to move forward with it after 1-1/2 years of signing the agreement.'
They had inked a deal to buy the 99-year leasehold estate for less than $850 per sq ft of gross floor area, before prices shot up dramatically in last year's bull market.
Some sellers were unhappy with what they regarded as a low price, particularly after a neighbouring development sold for more than double that price. Others, including the objectors, never wanted to sell from day one.
The objectors had argued, for example, that the sales committee had acted in bad faith in the way it handled an alternative offer of $510 million from another firm as well as the way it distributed the sale proceeds.
Justice Choo, in his judgment, dismissed the appeal saying there was no error of law to justify overturning a decision of the Strata Titles Board (STB) to allow the sale to go ahead. The STB had found that the sales committee had made a 'judgment call' to proceed with the offer.
The objectors did not prove the committee had acted in bad faith, he said. This was an issue of fact, not law, so it was within the purview of the STB, he said.
'From the submissions and supporting documents, it appears that there may have been intrigue in the course of the en bloc sale from the day the SC (sales committee) was created to the proceedings before the STB,' said Justice Choo.
'It is questionable, however, whether the STB was the forum to resolve all questions arising from secret manoeuvres of the different factions among the subsidiary proprietors.'
The STB is not a court but a statutory tribunal, he added.
The Horizon Towers case was the first collective sale where the majority owners were slapped with a lawsuit for alleged breach of contract.
In late June, Justice Choo also dismissed an appeal by objecting owners of another large collective sale site - Gillman Heights. CapitaLand is the lead buyer of the $548 million site in Alexandra Road.
High Court ruling clears the way for $500m collective sale that was inked 1-1/2 years ago
THE drawn-out battle over the $500 million collective sale of Horizon Towers has moved one step closer to a conclusion after the High Court threw out an appeal by objecting owners.
Yesterday's ruling means the sale of the Leonie Hill estate, first inked in January last year, can proceed - unless the objectors pursue one final possible avenue of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Some are considering this option.
The case marks a win for Mr K. Shanmugam in his final appearance as a litigator on April 30 before becoming Law Minister. He appeared before High Court Justice Choo Han Teck on behalf of the buyers, Hotel Properties (HPL) and its two partners.
HPL executive director Christopher Lim said: 'We hope to move forward with it after 1-1/2 years of signing the agreement.'
They had inked a deal to buy the 99-year leasehold estate for less than $850 per sq ft of gross floor area, before prices shot up dramatically in last year's bull market.
Some sellers were unhappy with what they regarded as a low price, particularly after a neighbouring development sold for more than double that price. Others, including the objectors, never wanted to sell from day one.
The objectors had argued, for example, that the sales committee had acted in bad faith in the way it handled an alternative offer of $510 million from another firm as well as the way it distributed the sale proceeds.
Justice Choo, in his judgment, dismissed the appeal saying there was no error of law to justify overturning a decision of the Strata Titles Board (STB) to allow the sale to go ahead. The STB had found that the sales committee had made a 'judgment call' to proceed with the offer.
The objectors did not prove the committee had acted in bad faith, he said. This was an issue of fact, not law, so it was within the purview of the STB, he said.
'From the submissions and supporting documents, it appears that there may have been intrigue in the course of the en bloc sale from the day the SC (sales committee) was created to the proceedings before the STB,' said Justice Choo.
'It is questionable, however, whether the STB was the forum to resolve all questions arising from secret manoeuvres of the different factions among the subsidiary proprietors.'
The STB is not a court but a statutory tribunal, he added.
The Horizon Towers case was the first collective sale where the majority owners were slapped with a lawsuit for alleged breach of contract.
In late June, Justice Choo also dismissed an appeal by objecting owners of another large collective sale site - Gillman Heights. CapitaLand is the lead buyer of the $548 million site in Alexandra Road.
Another Door Closes On Horizon Minorities
Source : The Business Times, July 18, 2008
High Court dismisses appeal, says there's no proof that sale was in bad faith
Minority owners seeking to stop the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers have been defeated yet again. Singapore's High Court yesterday dismissed their appeal, on the grounds that they failed to prove the sale was done in bad faith and prejudiced their rights.
This decision, coming on the heels of the High Court's dismissal of an appeal against the sale of Gillman Heights Condominium, marks the second major defeat for minorities here.
The minority owners of Horizon Towers whom BT spoke to said they were still considering their options at this time. But they will soon be meeting to decide if they will take the matter to the Court of Appeal, or start a civil suit to claim for any financial loss - which will be their final recourse.
If they decide not to appeal further, the $500 million sale of the Leonie Hill development to a consortium led by Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) will go through. It will also mean that the closely watched saga - which has been playing out in the public eye for more than a year - will finally come to a close.
HPL group executive director Chris Lim told BT: 'We are pleased with the High Court judgment and hope to move forward with the deal as it's been one-and-a-half years since the sale agreement was inked.'
Justice Choo Han Teck, who presided over the minorities' appeal, said in his judgment yesterday that the minorities had failed to show that the Strata Titles Board (STB) erred in law in its decision to approve the en bloc sale in December.
The High Court only has powers to consider questions of law on appeal.
The minorities had argued that the sale had been conducted in bad faith. They claimed a better sale price might have been achieved if the sales committee had pursued a second offer from a party called Vineyard, which had reportedly offered $510 million. The minorities claimed the sales committee did not pursue the offer - and even concealed it - because the development's sales agent, First Tree, was getting a higher sales commission from the HPL consortium.
But Justice Choo said the minorities failed to prove bad faith, as their argument was essentially concerned with whether the eventual sale price was fair - which is 'a question of fact' for the STB to decide, and not a question of law for the court to deliberate on.
Justice Choo said, if the minorities feel the sales committee had deliberately or negligently not pursued the Vineyard offer, they can pursue a civil claim for the purported financial loss.
He also ruled that the minorities had failed to prove there was a lack of good faith in the way the sales proceeds were to be distributed amongst the various owners. The minorities argued the apportionment method used was unfair because it resulted in penthouse owners getting about 16 per cent less on a per- square-metre basis, compared to non-penthouse owners.
Justice Choo said there can't be a lack of good faith in the selection of the apportionment method just because it was the only one considered or it led to some owners getting more than others. He noted that the STB had considered the evidence of several experts and it seemed no one method would satisfy everyone.
He added that, even if the STB had deemed the chosen method inappropriate, it would be an error of fact and not an error of law.
He also dismissed the minorities' arguments that the en bloc sale was unconstitutional, and that the sale agreement had lapsed by the time the STB approved the sale.
Justice Choo also noted the 'intrigue' that has surrounded the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers. There have been numerous accusations on the conduct of the various parties involved - ranging from whether the sales committee should have worked harder to get a better sale price, to whether the minorities were only against the sale because the price was too low.
'The STB was not bound to examine the rights and preferences of each individual subsidiary proprietor and it was not the forum to inquire into the conduct of individual members of the SC (sales committee), or even the SC as a whole,' Justice Choo said. 'If the STB were to embark on the kind of inquiry and make the findings the appellants say it ought to have done, the STB would never get its job done within the time limited.'
High Court dismisses appeal, says there's no proof that sale was in bad faith
Minority owners seeking to stop the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers have been defeated yet again. Singapore's High Court yesterday dismissed their appeal, on the grounds that they failed to prove the sale was done in bad faith and prejudiced their rights.
This decision, coming on the heels of the High Court's dismissal of an appeal against the sale of Gillman Heights Condominium, marks the second major defeat for minorities here.
The minority owners of Horizon Towers whom BT spoke to said they were still considering their options at this time. But they will soon be meeting to decide if they will take the matter to the Court of Appeal, or start a civil suit to claim for any financial loss - which will be their final recourse.
If they decide not to appeal further, the $500 million sale of the Leonie Hill development to a consortium led by Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) will go through. It will also mean that the closely watched saga - which has been playing out in the public eye for more than a year - will finally come to a close.
HPL group executive director Chris Lim told BT: 'We are pleased with the High Court judgment and hope to move forward with the deal as it's been one-and-a-half years since the sale agreement was inked.'
Justice Choo Han Teck, who presided over the minorities' appeal, said in his judgment yesterday that the minorities had failed to show that the Strata Titles Board (STB) erred in law in its decision to approve the en bloc sale in December.
The High Court only has powers to consider questions of law on appeal.
The minorities had argued that the sale had been conducted in bad faith. They claimed a better sale price might have been achieved if the sales committee had pursued a second offer from a party called Vineyard, which had reportedly offered $510 million. The minorities claimed the sales committee did not pursue the offer - and even concealed it - because the development's sales agent, First Tree, was getting a higher sales commission from the HPL consortium.
But Justice Choo said the minorities failed to prove bad faith, as their argument was essentially concerned with whether the eventual sale price was fair - which is 'a question of fact' for the STB to decide, and not a question of law for the court to deliberate on.
Justice Choo said, if the minorities feel the sales committee had deliberately or negligently not pursued the Vineyard offer, they can pursue a civil claim for the purported financial loss.
He also ruled that the minorities had failed to prove there was a lack of good faith in the way the sales proceeds were to be distributed amongst the various owners. The minorities argued the apportionment method used was unfair because it resulted in penthouse owners getting about 16 per cent less on a per- square-metre basis, compared to non-penthouse owners.
Justice Choo said there can't be a lack of good faith in the selection of the apportionment method just because it was the only one considered or it led to some owners getting more than others. He noted that the STB had considered the evidence of several experts and it seemed no one method would satisfy everyone.
He added that, even if the STB had deemed the chosen method inappropriate, it would be an error of fact and not an error of law.
He also dismissed the minorities' arguments that the en bloc sale was unconstitutional, and that the sale agreement had lapsed by the time the STB approved the sale.
Justice Choo also noted the 'intrigue' that has surrounded the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers. There have been numerous accusations on the conduct of the various parties involved - ranging from whether the sales committee should have worked harder to get a better sale price, to whether the minorities were only against the sale because the price was too low.
'The STB was not bound to examine the rights and preferences of each individual subsidiary proprietor and it was not the forum to inquire into the conduct of individual members of the SC (sales committee), or even the SC as a whole,' Justice Choo said. 'If the STB were to embark on the kind of inquiry and make the findings the appellants say it ought to have done, the STB would never get its job done within the time limited.'
Dissenters Of Horizon Towers En-Bloc Sale Lose Appeal
Source : The Straits Times, July 17, 2008
THE drawn-out collective sale of Horizon Towers finally came to a close on Thursday when the High Court threw out the appeal of the objecting owners, allowing it to proceed.
This means that Hotel Properties (HPL) and its two partners can now complete the $500 million collective sale of the Leonie Hill estate, if the objecting owners do not appeal against the High Court's decision.
It has been one-and-a-half years since the deal was inked.
High Court judge Choo Han Teck on Thursday said he was of the view that there was no error of law that would have corrupted the decision of the Strata Titles Board (STB), which had allowed the sale to proceed.
THE drawn-out collective sale of Horizon Towers finally came to a close on Thursday when the High Court threw out the appeal of the objecting owners, allowing it to proceed.
This means that Hotel Properties (HPL) and its two partners can now complete the $500 million collective sale of the Leonie Hill estate, if the objecting owners do not appeal against the High Court's decision.
It has been one-and-a-half years since the deal was inked.
High Court judge Choo Han Teck on Thursday said he was of the view that there was no error of law that would have corrupted the decision of the Strata Titles Board (STB), which had allowed the sale to proceed.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
High Court Dismisses Horizon Towers En Bloc Appeals
Source : The Business Times, July 17, 2008
Hotel Properties Limited on Thursday said Singapore's High Court has dismissed the appeals by the minority sellers in Horizon Towers' en bloc sale.
.gif)
The minority sellers had made the appeal in January 2008 against the Strata Titles Board's decision delivered on December 7, 2007 which would allow the en bloc sale of the condominium to proceed.
HPL, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million for the condo located in the prime district. The deal was inked in January last year, before the property prices shot up.
But the closure of the collective sale was delayed after a group of minority owners put up an appeal saying the sale was carried out in bad faith. -- BT Newsroom
Hotel Properties Limited on Thursday said Singapore's High Court has dismissed the appeals by the minority sellers in Horizon Towers' en bloc sale.
.gif)
The minority sellers had made the appeal in January 2008 against the Strata Titles Board's decision delivered on December 7, 2007 which would allow the en bloc sale of the condominium to proceed. HPL, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million for the condo located in the prime district. The deal was inked in January last year, before the property prices shot up.
But the closure of the collective sale was delayed after a group of minority owners put up an appeal saying the sale was carried out in bad faith. -- BT Newsroom
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Australia's Curtin University Of Technology To Open Singapore Campus
Source : Channel NewsAsia, 26 March 2008
Top Australian institution – the Curtin University of Technology – will be setting up shop here, adding another boost to the tertiary scene in Singapore.
Students can expect degree programmes in business and technology when the campus opens in early December.
Artist's impression of the Singapore campus of Curtin University of Technology
The former ITE Balestier campus at Jalan Rajah may not look impressive now, but come December, the buildings will be given a makeover and a new lease of life as the Singapore campus of Australia's Curtin University of Technology.
Details of the S$40 million project are still being worked out, but Australian education service provider, Navitas, said Curtin Singapore will be of the same standard as the university's other campuses in Malaysia and Australia.
Related Video :- http://tinyurl.com/2s77pq
Rod Jones, CEO of Navitas, said: "One of the things we would encourage is for students studying in Curtin Singapore campus to do one semester in Australia because part of an international degree is understanding the culture and the country in which the degree is being offered."
Asked if Navitas and Curtin were deterred by the experience of another Australian university, the University of New South Wales which shut its Asia campus here soon after it opened last year, Mr Jones said that unlike UNSW Asia, which was a research university, Curtin saw itself as a teaching university.
Compared to the former, Curtin's model is less expensive to manage.
Curtin Singapore will open its gates to over 900 students, including freshmen and existing students of Curtin's joint programmes with industry partners here.
These partners are Singapore Human Resource Institute, the Marketing Institute of Singapore, and the Singapore Institute of Materials Management.
Although the initial cohort of Curtin students will be fairly modest, the university expects to grow to a size of about 3,000 students in three years.
Talks are also underway to build hostel facilities at the campus, but details have yet to be confirmed.
According to Navitas, there will be some degree of financial aid, but no details can be offered at the moment. - CNA/so
Top Australian institution – the Curtin University of Technology – will be setting up shop here, adding another boost to the tertiary scene in Singapore.
Students can expect degree programmes in business and technology when the campus opens in early December.
Artist's impression of the Singapore campus of Curtin University of TechnologyThe former ITE Balestier campus at Jalan Rajah may not look impressive now, but come December, the buildings will be given a makeover and a new lease of life as the Singapore campus of Australia's Curtin University of Technology.
Details of the S$40 million project are still being worked out, but Australian education service provider, Navitas, said Curtin Singapore will be of the same standard as the university's other campuses in Malaysia and Australia.
Related Video :- http://tinyurl.com/2s77pq
Rod Jones, CEO of Navitas, said: "One of the things we would encourage is for students studying in Curtin Singapore campus to do one semester in Australia because part of an international degree is understanding the culture and the country in which the degree is being offered."
Asked if Navitas and Curtin were deterred by the experience of another Australian university, the University of New South Wales which shut its Asia campus here soon after it opened last year, Mr Jones said that unlike UNSW Asia, which was a research university, Curtin saw itself as a teaching university.
Compared to the former, Curtin's model is less expensive to manage.Curtin Singapore will open its gates to over 900 students, including freshmen and existing students of Curtin's joint programmes with industry partners here.
These partners are Singapore Human Resource Institute, the Marketing Institute of Singapore, and the Singapore Institute of Materials Management.
Although the initial cohort of Curtin students will be fairly modest, the university expects to grow to a size of about 3,000 students in three years.
Talks are also underway to build hostel facilities at the campus, but details have yet to be confirmed.
According to Navitas, there will be some degree of financial aid, but no details can be offered at the moment. - CNA/so
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Horizon Minorities Say Sale Done In Bad Faith
Source : The Business Times, March 20, 2008
The minority owners of Horizon Towers say the collective sale of the development was conducted in bad faith because the sales committee did not seek the best price.
This was the case they put forward yesterday on the opening day of their appeal against a decision by the Strata Title Board (STB) on Dec 7 last year to approve the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers.
Some of their arguments were already presented at the STB hearings but the minority owners felt the need to bring them up again as they believe they did not get a fair hearing when the sale was adjudicated by STB last year.
The group of minority owners, represented by Harry Elias Partnership, dwelt heavily yesterday on their claim that the Horizon Towers sales committee deliberately ignored an offer from a Hong Kong developer that was higher than the $500 million offered, and eventually paid, by Hotel Properties Ltd and its partners.
The minorities say an offer of $510 million came from Vineyard Holdings (HK) via Malaysian law firm Shan & Su, and that the sales committee deliberately hid this information from the other owners.
The minorities also claim the sales committee set onerous conditions for this competing offer and misrepresented at the STB hearing that its lawyer had advised it to dismiss the offer.
The minorities also introduced fresh evidence they say contradicts testimony to STB last year by sales committee member Henry Lim. Mr Lim said he was advised by the sales committee’s law firm, Drew & Napier, not to pursue the Vineyard Holdings offer.
But Harry Elias Partnership produced a letter from Drew & Napier in which the law firm said it advised Mr Lim to follow up all potential offers - and left the responsibility of doing so entirely to him. ‘At no time was Drew & Napier asked to do anything in relation to Vineyard’s interest,’ the firm’s letter said.
The letter was obtained only in January this year, after STB made its decision on the collective sale of Horizon Towers.
The minorities are arguing that STB therefore based its decision on false and misleading evidence, as it relied on the testimony of Mr Lim to conclude that the sales committee did not act improperly in not pursuing the Vineyard offer.
The hearing of the minorities’ appeal continues today. Hotel Properties ‘ law firm Allen & Gledhill, which was granted leave yesterday to intervene in the appeal, will present its arguments. The majority owners who agreed to the collective sale, represented by Tan Rajah & Cheah, will also put their arguments.
Two minority owners - Lo Pui Sang, who represented himself, and Canterford, who was represented by Senior Counsel Michael Hwang and Dr SK Phang - decided not to appeal against STB’s decision. Minority owner Jasmine Tan, previously represented by Tan Kok Quan, has opted to represent herself in the appeal.
The minority owners of Horizon Towers say the collective sale of the development was conducted in bad faith because the sales committee did not seek the best price.
This was the case they put forward yesterday on the opening day of their appeal against a decision by the Strata Title Board (STB) on Dec 7 last year to approve the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers.
Some of their arguments were already presented at the STB hearings but the minority owners felt the need to bring them up again as they believe they did not get a fair hearing when the sale was adjudicated by STB last year.
The group of minority owners, represented by Harry Elias Partnership, dwelt heavily yesterday on their claim that the Horizon Towers sales committee deliberately ignored an offer from a Hong Kong developer that was higher than the $500 million offered, and eventually paid, by Hotel Properties Ltd and its partners.
The minorities say an offer of $510 million came from Vineyard Holdings (HK) via Malaysian law firm Shan & Su, and that the sales committee deliberately hid this information from the other owners.
The minorities also claim the sales committee set onerous conditions for this competing offer and misrepresented at the STB hearing that its lawyer had advised it to dismiss the offer.
The minorities also introduced fresh evidence they say contradicts testimony to STB last year by sales committee member Henry Lim. Mr Lim said he was advised by the sales committee’s law firm, Drew & Napier, not to pursue the Vineyard Holdings offer.
But Harry Elias Partnership produced a letter from Drew & Napier in which the law firm said it advised Mr Lim to follow up all potential offers - and left the responsibility of doing so entirely to him. ‘At no time was Drew & Napier asked to do anything in relation to Vineyard’s interest,’ the firm’s letter said.
The letter was obtained only in January this year, after STB made its decision on the collective sale of Horizon Towers.
The minorities are arguing that STB therefore based its decision on false and misleading evidence, as it relied on the testimony of Mr Lim to conclude that the sales committee did not act improperly in not pursuing the Vineyard offer.
The hearing of the minorities’ appeal continues today. Hotel Properties ‘ law firm Allen & Gledhill, which was granted leave yesterday to intervene in the appeal, will present its arguments. The majority owners who agreed to the collective sale, represented by Tan Rajah & Cheah, will also put their arguments.
Two minority owners - Lo Pui Sang, who represented himself, and Canterford, who was represented by Senior Counsel Michael Hwang and Dr SK Phang - decided not to appeal against STB’s decision. Minority owner Jasmine Tan, previously represented by Tan Kok Quan, has opted to represent herself in the appeal.
Horizon Towers Case Back In High Court
Source : The Straits Times, Mar 20, 2008
THE seemingly never-ending saga of the Horizon Towers collective sale is clearly losing steam.
Two of the nine sets of minority owners fighting the sale have dropped out of the High Court appeal that started yesterday, and even the number of onlookers in the public gallery was noticeably fewer than at previous hearings.
The dropouts - a couple representing themselves and a foreign firm - were not represented in court yesterday.
Minority owners Jasmine Tan and Rudy Darmawan are representing themselves and three others while Mr Quek Keng Seng is representing himself. The other minority owners are represented by Harry Elias Partnership.
Senior Counsel Harry Elias told the court that the $500 million sale price was not obtained in good faith. He highlighted the fact that a higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings in Hong Kong was not communicated to the owners.
Mr K. Shanmugam and his team from Allen & Gledhill, who are representing the buyers, applied successfully to participate in the court session.
Minority owners are appealing a decision in December last year by the Strata Titles Board (STB) to approve the $500 million sale of the 99-year leasehold Leonie Hill estate.
The on-off again sale has reflected the roller-coaster ride Singapore’s property market has been on over the past two years or so.
The Horizon Towers deal was inked in January last year, before the market shot up. Hotel Properties , Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million.
But as the market boiled over last year, minority owners felt they were getting a raw deal and tried to halt the sale. They had some success when the STB rejected the sale on a technicality, but that ruling was overturned by the High Court in October. The STB approved the sale in December.
But the once-hot market has cooled considerably since then. Sale volumes have thinned out dramatically although prices have generally held up.
The minority owners are still fighting the sale as they never wanted to sell from Day One. And the sale price of less than $900 per sq ft is still below prevailing market rates, said an industry source.
The hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck continues today.
THE seemingly never-ending saga of the Horizon Towers collective sale is clearly losing steam.
Two of the nine sets of minority owners fighting the sale have dropped out of the High Court appeal that started yesterday, and even the number of onlookers in the public gallery was noticeably fewer than at previous hearings.
The dropouts - a couple representing themselves and a foreign firm - were not represented in court yesterday.
Minority owners Jasmine Tan and Rudy Darmawan are representing themselves and three others while Mr Quek Keng Seng is representing himself. The other minority owners are represented by Harry Elias Partnership.
Senior Counsel Harry Elias told the court that the $500 million sale price was not obtained in good faith. He highlighted the fact that a higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings in Hong Kong was not communicated to the owners.
Mr K. Shanmugam and his team from Allen & Gledhill, who are representing the buyers, applied successfully to participate in the court session.
Minority owners are appealing a decision in December last year by the Strata Titles Board (STB) to approve the $500 million sale of the 99-year leasehold Leonie Hill estate.
The on-off again sale has reflected the roller-coaster ride Singapore’s property market has been on over the past two years or so.
The Horizon Towers deal was inked in January last year, before the market shot up. Hotel Properties , Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million.
But as the market boiled over last year, minority owners felt they were getting a raw deal and tried to halt the sale. They had some success when the STB rejected the sale on a technicality, but that ruling was overturned by the High Court in October. The STB approved the sale in December.
But the once-hot market has cooled considerably since then. Sale volumes have thinned out dramatically although prices have generally held up.
The minority owners are still fighting the sale as they never wanted to sell from Day One. And the sale price of less than $900 per sq ft is still below prevailing market rates, said an industry source.
The hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck continues today.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
浩然大厦一业主称销售委会失责
《联合早报》Mar 21, 2008
销售委员会想‘扮演上帝’，利用我的家来套利！”浩然大厦（Horizon Towers）少数业主之一的李仕隆，昨天在第二天的高庭上诉审讯中这么说。
李仕隆告诉法官，虽然了解和接受在新加坡，集体出售是城市更新的一个做法，但他不能接受销售委员会缺乏诚信和透明度的做法。
他指出，销售委员会没有公开曾获得更高售价献议，在出售时也没有通知所有业主，而且把所作所为归咎于律师建议，有违反集体出售协议、失责和欠缺透明之嫌。李仕隆这一次放弃聘请律师，自己出庭上诉。
由于销售委员会在分层地契局供证的时候表示，是在律师指引下行事。给予销售委员会法律咨询的卢纳北亚律师事务所（Drew & Napier LLC）于今年1月16日向少数业主致函澄清，当时建议委员会在采取任何行动之前必须咨询销售代理以及房地产专家，确保交易是以同意出售业主的最佳利益为出发点。
此外，李仕隆也提出，由于代理销售的First Tree Properties，代理费是由买方支付，而出现利益上冲突：代理会宁可选择一个肯支付它更高代理费的买家，而放弃为业主争取最高售价。
除了提出反对论据外，李仕隆还将个人的故事告诉法官：他是名印尼华侨，于1988年来到新加坡，一直都住在浩然大厦，在那里长大，之后落地深根，因此不想迁离。
之前接受本报访问时，目前从商的李仕隆说，他当年是和阿姨一起住，大学毕业结婚后，与妻子在浩然大厦买下一个单位。由于情牵浩然大厦，阿姨和他一开始都不愿出售。
去年12月初，分层地契局二度审理浩然大厦集体出售申请后，认为少数业主提出的反对论据不足以损害少数业主的利益，批准申请。不满裁决的少数业主向高庭提出上诉，证明交易诚信缺失（bad faith）。由旅店置业（HPL）和两家外国投资基金（Morgan Stanley及Qatar Investments）组成的财团HPPL，去年2月以5亿元集体收购浩然大厦。
浩然大厦集体出售审讯将在四月续审。
销售委员会想‘扮演上帝’，利用我的家来套利！”浩然大厦（Horizon Towers）少数业主之一的李仕隆，昨天在第二天的高庭上诉审讯中这么说。
李仕隆告诉法官，虽然了解和接受在新加坡，集体出售是城市更新的一个做法，但他不能接受销售委员会缺乏诚信和透明度的做法。
他指出，销售委员会没有公开曾获得更高售价献议，在出售时也没有通知所有业主，而且把所作所为归咎于律师建议，有违反集体出售协议、失责和欠缺透明之嫌。李仕隆这一次放弃聘请律师，自己出庭上诉。
由于销售委员会在分层地契局供证的时候表示，是在律师指引下行事。给予销售委员会法律咨询的卢纳北亚律师事务所（Drew & Napier LLC）于今年1月16日向少数业主致函澄清，当时建议委员会在采取任何行动之前必须咨询销售代理以及房地产专家，确保交易是以同意出售业主的最佳利益为出发点。
此外，李仕隆也提出，由于代理销售的First Tree Properties，代理费是由买方支付，而出现利益上冲突：代理会宁可选择一个肯支付它更高代理费的买家，而放弃为业主争取最高售价。
除了提出反对论据外，李仕隆还将个人的故事告诉法官：他是名印尼华侨，于1988年来到新加坡，一直都住在浩然大厦，在那里长大，之后落地深根，因此不想迁离。
之前接受本报访问时，目前从商的李仕隆说，他当年是和阿姨一起住，大学毕业结婚后，与妻子在浩然大厦买下一个单位。由于情牵浩然大厦，阿姨和他一开始都不愿出售。
去年12月初，分层地契局二度审理浩然大厦集体出售申请后，认为少数业主提出的反对论据不足以损害少数业主的利益，批准申请。不满裁决的少数业主向高庭提出上诉，证明交易诚信缺失（bad faith）。由旅店置业（HPL）和两家外国投资基金（Morgan Stanley及Qatar Investments）组成的财团HPPL，去年2月以5亿元集体收购浩然大厦。
浩然大厦集体出售审讯将在四月续审。
Monday, January 7, 2008
浩然大厦Horizon Towers九业主上诉反对出售判决
《联合早报》Jan 06, 2008
2007年最受人瞩目的集体出售项目浩然大厦(Horizon Towers)事件，将继续在2008年在庭上僵持。九个提出反对的少数业主昨天向高庭申请上诉。
这将是浩然大厦案子第二度闹上高庭。所有向分层地契局申请反对出售的少数业主，因不满分层地契局在上个月7日批准浩然大厦集体出售的决定，在28天上诉期限的最后一天对这项裁决提出上诉。
陈国洸律师事务所的拉美斯(Kannan Ramesh)昨天接受本报询问时证实这个消息。
他表示，少数业主原本想等到分层地契局发出判决理由(Grounds of Decision)后再决定是否上诉，但至今仍未获得书面判词。
他说：“已到了期限的最后一天，少数业主为了维护家园别无选择。到了高庭，他们只能以分层地契局在诠释法律论点（point of law）上有错，提出上诉。”
据本报了解，由于上诉程序会导致他们面对高昂的诉讼费用，而且成功的希望也不高，一些少数业主原本在上个月决定不要上诉。
后来，在找到更多反对论据，显示房地产代理和销售委员诚信缺失(bad faith)下，少数业主决定再尝试。
其中一名反对集体出售计划的业主黄匡胜通过女儿向本报重申，反对出售不是为了金钱利益，而既然已奋斗到了这个阶段，他们会继续据理力争。
另外，过去半年在分层地契局为自己辩护的少数业主卢佩生和郭庆成，则聘请了由彭律师事务所委任的黄锡义高级律师，代表他们向高庭上诉。黄锡义同时是另一名少数业主Canterford Limited的代表律师。
卢佩生告诉本报，这么做是由于自己无法在高庭上为自己辩护，而为了表明为保家园，不愿出售的立场，他决定聘请律师为他上诉。
他说：“我决定上诉是因为房地产代理和销售委员会没有尽他们的责任，是原则上的问题。何况，我们的案子和凤凰楼(Phoenix Court)的情况不同，分层地契局把两个公寓相提并论，推翻我们的反对论据有欠公平。”
据了解，高庭听审原定在2月初过堂，但如果少数业主在本月底之前还无法得到分层地契局的书面判词，听审可能会延后举行。
在2007年下半年闹得沸沸扬扬的浩然大厦集体出售交易可追溯到去年2月。由旅店置业(HPL)和两家外国投资基金Morgan Stanley及Qatar Investments组成的HPPL，当时以5亿元购买浩然大厦。
然而，分层地契局于8月3日因技术上不符合规定的理由，不批准集体出售委员会的集体出售令申请。
HPPL之后入禀高庭告业主违反选购权，要求同意出售的业主尽其所能重新向分层地契局申请并获得集体出售令，否则得归还之前所收取的5000万元定金，还可能面对10亿元的索赔官司。
在面对官司的压力下，同意出售的业主后来同意把交易完成期限延迟到12月11日，同时向高庭上诉分层地契局的决定。高庭后来批准上诉，该局于11月30日继续审理申请。
经过11天的审讯和两个星期的斟酌后，分层地契局认为以上论据不足以损害少数业主的利益，在12月7日推翻少数业主反对论据，批准该公寓集体出售。
如果上诉失败还可上诉最高法院
如果少数业主这次的上诉败诉，他们还有机会到最高法院上诉庭(Court of Appeal)提出上诉。买方也同样能在少数业主得直的情况下，向最高法院上诉庭上诉。
2007年最受人瞩目的集体出售项目浩然大厦(Horizon Towers)事件，将继续在2008年在庭上僵持。九个提出反对的少数业主昨天向高庭申请上诉。
这将是浩然大厦案子第二度闹上高庭。所有向分层地契局申请反对出售的少数业主，因不满分层地契局在上个月7日批准浩然大厦集体出售的决定，在28天上诉期限的最后一天对这项裁决提出上诉。
陈国洸律师事务所的拉美斯(Kannan Ramesh)昨天接受本报询问时证实这个消息。
他表示，少数业主原本想等到分层地契局发出判决理由(Grounds of Decision)后再决定是否上诉，但至今仍未获得书面判词。
他说：“已到了期限的最后一天，少数业主为了维护家园别无选择。到了高庭，他们只能以分层地契局在诠释法律论点（point of law）上有错，提出上诉。”
据本报了解，由于上诉程序会导致他们面对高昂的诉讼费用，而且成功的希望也不高，一些少数业主原本在上个月决定不要上诉。
后来，在找到更多反对论据，显示房地产代理和销售委员诚信缺失(bad faith)下，少数业主决定再尝试。
其中一名反对集体出售计划的业主黄匡胜通过女儿向本报重申，反对出售不是为了金钱利益，而既然已奋斗到了这个阶段，他们会继续据理力争。
另外，过去半年在分层地契局为自己辩护的少数业主卢佩生和郭庆成，则聘请了由彭律师事务所委任的黄锡义高级律师，代表他们向高庭上诉。黄锡义同时是另一名少数业主Canterford Limited的代表律师。
卢佩生告诉本报，这么做是由于自己无法在高庭上为自己辩护，而为了表明为保家园，不愿出售的立场，他决定聘请律师为他上诉。
他说：“我决定上诉是因为房地产代理和销售委员会没有尽他们的责任，是原则上的问题。何况，我们的案子和凤凰楼(Phoenix Court)的情况不同，分层地契局把两个公寓相提并论，推翻我们的反对论据有欠公平。”
据了解，高庭听审原定在2月初过堂，但如果少数业主在本月底之前还无法得到分层地契局的书面判词，听审可能会延后举行。
在2007年下半年闹得沸沸扬扬的浩然大厦集体出售交易可追溯到去年2月。由旅店置业(HPL)和两家外国投资基金Morgan Stanley及Qatar Investments组成的HPPL，当时以5亿元购买浩然大厦。
然而，分层地契局于8月3日因技术上不符合规定的理由，不批准集体出售委员会的集体出售令申请。
HPPL之后入禀高庭告业主违反选购权，要求同意出售的业主尽其所能重新向分层地契局申请并获得集体出售令，否则得归还之前所收取的5000万元定金，还可能面对10亿元的索赔官司。
在面对官司的压力下，同意出售的业主后来同意把交易完成期限延迟到12月11日，同时向高庭上诉分层地契局的决定。高庭后来批准上诉，该局于11月30日继续审理申请。
经过11天的审讯和两个星期的斟酌后，分层地契局认为以上论据不足以损害少数业主的利益，在12月7日推翻少数业主反对论据，批准该公寓集体出售。
如果上诉失败还可上诉最高法院
如果少数业主这次的上诉败诉，他们还有机会到最高法院上诉庭(Court of Appeal)提出上诉。买方也同样能在少数业主得直的情况下，向最高法院上诉庭上诉。
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Horizon Towers Saga - Let Judges Decide
Source : TODAY Weekend, January 5, 2008
En bloc is about losing homes, Strata Titles Board need to reflect that
Dharmendra Yadav
EN BLOC sales were the buzzwords of 2007 and if the economic indicators are right, the story will continue to dominate the headlines this year.
The en bloc craze of the past year has meant a lot more work for the Strata Titles Boards (STB). Since 1999, the board has shouldered the additional role of approving collective sales of developments that cannot get a 100-per-cent consensus from the sellers of the land but where 80 to 90 per cent of the sellers support the sale, depending on the age of the development.
Last year, Parliament passed changes to the law that require the 80 or 90 per cent consent level — depending on the age of the development — to also take into account the unit sizes of the Strata Title owners.
Lawyer Lee Liat Yeang of Rodyk and Davidson said in December 2005: "One important legal condition to be satisfied before the STB can grant an order for sale is that there is no objection filed by an owner on 'financial loss' ground.
"Another important legal ingredient … is that of good faith. In the Act, the good faith element has to be determined by having regard only to the following factors: Sale price, the method of distribution of the sale proceeds and the relationship, if any, of the purchaser to any of the owners."
Not surprisingly, the increased volume of work undertaken by the STB has brought in its wake its fair share of controversy and criticism.
In a case last year, High Court Judge Andrew Ang described a collective sale approved by the STB as "a real mess".
He then ordered a stay on the collective sale.
To be fair to the STB, such a stay order is rare. Also, the board rarely rejects an application for a collective sale. Nevertheless, the STB did withhold its approval in at least two en bloc cases involving Finland Towers and Horizon Towers last year. The high-profile Horizon Towers case saw some of the best legal minds in the country slog it out as minority owners tried to block the sale and initially secured the STB's support.
The High Court eventually sent the sale back to the STB for reconsideration. After reconsideration, the STB approved the sale — although the minority owners are now appealing against the decision.
These en bloc cases have prompted many to look at the STB to see how its work can be made better or easier.
At a seminar last August, lawyer Ong Ying Ping raised this question: "Would it be better to revert to the original position before the 1999 changes? Is the present regime manifestly superior to the pre-1999 position where 100-per-cent consensus is required?"
Going back to the pre-1999 position would serve little purpose, since the changes were a pragmatic policy response to the promotion of urban redevelopment in Singapore.
Thus, it is more important to see how the work of the STB can be made better. Such impetus for improvement appears to have become more necessary in the light of recent legislative changes that gave the STB more discretion and powers.
The STB can now do three key things. It can:
• Increase the sale proceeds of minority owners who have filed valid objections to an en bloc sale application.
•Approve an en bloc sale application and disregard any technical irregularities that are non-compliant with the collective sales requirements if such non-compliance does not prejudice any owner's interest.
• Issue guidelines on the permissible expenditures that will count towards the evaluation of financial loss claims.
In effect, these new powers have enhanced the legal role that the STB plays — wider than the technical or mediatory role envisaged of the STB when it was first set up. That is why the board has had panel members with a wide range of experience, and only its president and deputy presidents are required to be legally qualified persons.
In addition, the discretion of the STB now appears to be more subjective and a body of precedents will be needed to control the application of these powers.
Indeed, one criticism of the STB, when it first rejected the Horizon Towers' collective sale application, was that it had not justified its decision with a detailed basis.
There thus appears to be a need to increase the legal expertise found on the STB.
When the Ministry of Law consulted the public on the changes it made last year, respondents had expressed a desire to see a "fairer and more transparent" process.
Lawyer Ong Ying Ping also noted: "Unlike policies that are both initiated and driven by government agencies, the en bloc legislation was largely a public-private initiative. The members sitting in the STB are all volunteers."
In February last year, the blogger of Enblocing Singapore wrote: "Given that nowadays, most objections are not really about financial loss … but about losing their homes …. there is a surprising dearth of the very people who should be involved in hearing these minority owners' plight."
Perhaps, for a better balancing of such interests, the time has come for the Ministry of Law to allow the STB to be operated by a team of full-time professionals rather than volunteers.
A newspaper reader suggested that a sitting judge should head the STB. Arguably, to take the idea forward, why not hand over the whole operation of the STB to the judiciary?
In his Second Reading Speech on the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill in September, Deputy Prime Minister Professor S Jayakumar emphasised that en bloc sale legislation required the maintenance of a careful balance.
They should "provide additional safeguards and ensure greater transparency for all owners" but should not make it "unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale".
Who better than a group of impartial persons to manage this delicate balance other than the judiciary?
There is clearly a need to take a comprehensive look at the structure of the STB in light of its enhanced legal role, and to enable this enhanced legal role to be exercised by persons qualified to do so.
The writer is General Committee Member of the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association. These are his personal views.
En bloc is about losing homes, Strata Titles Board need to reflect that
Dharmendra Yadav
EN BLOC sales were the buzzwords of 2007 and if the economic indicators are right, the story will continue to dominate the headlines this year.
The en bloc craze of the past year has meant a lot more work for the Strata Titles Boards (STB). Since 1999, the board has shouldered the additional role of approving collective sales of developments that cannot get a 100-per-cent consensus from the sellers of the land but where 80 to 90 per cent of the sellers support the sale, depending on the age of the development.
Last year, Parliament passed changes to the law that require the 80 or 90 per cent consent level — depending on the age of the development — to also take into account the unit sizes of the Strata Title owners.
Lawyer Lee Liat Yeang of Rodyk and Davidson said in December 2005: "One important legal condition to be satisfied before the STB can grant an order for sale is that there is no objection filed by an owner on 'financial loss' ground.
"Another important legal ingredient … is that of good faith. In the Act, the good faith element has to be determined by having regard only to the following factors: Sale price, the method of distribution of the sale proceeds and the relationship, if any, of the purchaser to any of the owners."
Not surprisingly, the increased volume of work undertaken by the STB has brought in its wake its fair share of controversy and criticism.
In a case last year, High Court Judge Andrew Ang described a collective sale approved by the STB as "a real mess".
He then ordered a stay on the collective sale.
To be fair to the STB, such a stay order is rare. Also, the board rarely rejects an application for a collective sale. Nevertheless, the STB did withhold its approval in at least two en bloc cases involving Finland Towers and Horizon Towers last year. The high-profile Horizon Towers case saw some of the best legal minds in the country slog it out as minority owners tried to block the sale and initially secured the STB's support.
The High Court eventually sent the sale back to the STB for reconsideration. After reconsideration, the STB approved the sale — although the minority owners are now appealing against the decision.
These en bloc cases have prompted many to look at the STB to see how its work can be made better or easier.
At a seminar last August, lawyer Ong Ying Ping raised this question: "Would it be better to revert to the original position before the 1999 changes? Is the present regime manifestly superior to the pre-1999 position where 100-per-cent consensus is required?"
Going back to the pre-1999 position would serve little purpose, since the changes were a pragmatic policy response to the promotion of urban redevelopment in Singapore.
Thus, it is more important to see how the work of the STB can be made better. Such impetus for improvement appears to have become more necessary in the light of recent legislative changes that gave the STB more discretion and powers.
The STB can now do three key things. It can:
• Increase the sale proceeds of minority owners who have filed valid objections to an en bloc sale application.
•Approve an en bloc sale application and disregard any technical irregularities that are non-compliant with the collective sales requirements if such non-compliance does not prejudice any owner's interest.
• Issue guidelines on the permissible expenditures that will count towards the evaluation of financial loss claims.
In effect, these new powers have enhanced the legal role that the STB plays — wider than the technical or mediatory role envisaged of the STB when it was first set up. That is why the board has had panel members with a wide range of experience, and only its president and deputy presidents are required to be legally qualified persons.
In addition, the discretion of the STB now appears to be more subjective and a body of precedents will be needed to control the application of these powers.
Indeed, one criticism of the STB, when it first rejected the Horizon Towers' collective sale application, was that it had not justified its decision with a detailed basis.
There thus appears to be a need to increase the legal expertise found on the STB.
When the Ministry of Law consulted the public on the changes it made last year, respondents had expressed a desire to see a "fairer and more transparent" process.
Lawyer Ong Ying Ping also noted: "Unlike policies that are both initiated and driven by government agencies, the en bloc legislation was largely a public-private initiative. The members sitting in the STB are all volunteers."
In February last year, the blogger of Enblocing Singapore wrote: "Given that nowadays, most objections are not really about financial loss … but about losing their homes …. there is a surprising dearth of the very people who should be involved in hearing these minority owners' plight."
Perhaps, for a better balancing of such interests, the time has come for the Ministry of Law to allow the STB to be operated by a team of full-time professionals rather than volunteers.
A newspaper reader suggested that a sitting judge should head the STB. Arguably, to take the idea forward, why not hand over the whole operation of the STB to the judiciary?
In his Second Reading Speech on the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill in September, Deputy Prime Minister Professor S Jayakumar emphasised that en bloc sale legislation required the maintenance of a careful balance.
They should "provide additional safeguards and ensure greater transparency for all owners" but should not make it "unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale".
Who better than a group of impartial persons to manage this delicate balance other than the judiciary?
There is clearly a need to take a comprehensive look at the structure of the STB in light of its enhanced legal role, and to enable this enhanced legal role to be exercised by persons qualified to do so.
The writer is General Committee Member of the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association. These are his personal views.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
