Disclaimer






"I am a BLOGGER NOT an expert. This is a BLOG not a 'go-to' website for official information. I represent no one's view save my own. I have neither legal nor financial training, nor do I have anything to do with the real estate industry. My understanding of the Collective Sale Process is from a layman's position only. My calculations, computations and tables are homespun and may contain errors. Please note that nothing in this blog constitutes any legal or financial advice to anyone reading it. You should refer to your lawyer, CSC or financial adviser for expert advice before making any decision. This disclaimer is applicable to every post and comment on the blog. Read at your own risk."
Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
There is one thing worse than an Enbloc ----- and that is an Enbloc done badly. Since the majority have the necessary mandate to sell, then they owe it to all SPs to make a success of it. Minority SPs can only watch and wait, if they sell then lets pray it's at a price we can move on with, if they don't sell, then we are happy to stay for a few more years.

GILLMAN HEIGHTS

The Board's decision will be delivered
on 21 December 2007 at 9.30am.
.
Gillman Height's decision is important to Tampines Court; it will determine the date of TOP/CSC issue for Hudc estates. This is the first time that this issue has been raised at the STB.
.
It's unlikely an application to the Board will be made by the enbloc lawyer until the 80% or 90% threshold requirement has been confirmed.
.
So, any guesses as to the outcome of this case? I am hoping the STB will not view the TOP/SCS issue as a technicality, but an objection of substance. Looking at the decisions handed down by the High Court recently in the Phoenix Court case dated 09 Nov 2007, it seems the current refrain for such breaches/non-compliance is as follows:
.
"Given that the purpose of the legislation is to make it easier to achieve enbloc sales, and no prejudice to the plaintiffs having been shown, I am of the view that the legislature would not have intended that the decision of the Board be invalidated by such a footling objection."
.
and
.
"Applying the approach to the statutory construction discussed earlier in my judgment ([43]), I arrive at the conclusion that, given that the purpose of the legislation is to facilitate en bloc sales, Parliament would not have intended that the collective sale, consented to by all but the plaintiffs and ordered by the Board, should be nullified by this technical objection."
.
and
.
"Considering that the purpose of the legislation is to make enbloc sales easier to achieve and taking into account compliance in effect if not in form with the requirement for specification of the method of distribution and in the absence of any real prejudice to the plaintiffs., I am of the view that Parliament would not have intended that the approval of the sale by the Board should be invalidated by reason of such a technical objection."
.
and
.
"At the end of the day, each objection must be examined on its own facts and the particular requirement breached set against the overall purpose of the legislation. One should then consider whether a strict construction and the invalidation of the Board’s order is what Parliament would have intended…"
.
We shall see. I have faith that they will choose the wiser path and let the 90% stand. It is only Gillman Heights and Tampines Court that are currently affected by this ruling.
.
Go for it, STB!

1 comment:

  1. No takers for many collective sale sites as market cools

    Source: Straits Times - 18 Dec 2007

    MOST collective sale sites put up for tender in recent weeks have closed without any bids.

    About 40 estates have been launched for sale since October, but just eight deals were sealed between October and last month, said property firm CB Richard Ellis (CBRE).

    ‘The end of the year has come early,’ said CBRE executive director Jeremy Lake.

    This market cooling comes after a record of about $12.5 billion of collective sales was notched up this year.

    That was more than 50 per cent up on last year’s $8.2 billion, CBRE said yesterday.

    But developers have become more cautious about buying new sites, amid slowing home sales in Singapore and worries over the United States sub-prime mortgage crisis, property analysts say.
    While there is no shortage of home owners keen to go en bloc for the sort of record prices seen for most of this year, the number of sites that have successfully been sold has dropped off significantly in recent weeks - coinciding with slower private home sales.

    Figures released yesterday by the Urban Redevelopment Authority showed that 611 new units were sold last month, just a tad more than the 590 new units in October.
    That compares with a much higher 1,731 units sold in August, for instance.

    Said CBRE Research executive director Li Hiaw Ho: ‘Clearly, buyers have become more cautious in view of the volatility in global stock markets resulting from the sub-prime problems in the US, the smaller number of new launches…and tightened en bloc sales rules.’

    A new set of collective sale rules kicked in on Oct 4.

    In the weeks before that, a wave of potential sellers rushed to go en bloc to avoid the more time-consuming rules. But even some who managed to launch sales under the old rules have not succeeded in closing deals.

    Big sites such as Spanish Village in Farrer Road, Villa delle Rose off Holland Road and Elizabeth Towers in Mount Elizabeth all had no takers at the close of their tenders recently. Their indicative prices were $878 million, $700 million and $673 million respectively.

    The tender for former Housing and Urban Development Company estate Chancery Court on Dunearn Road also closed earlier this month without any bids. It had an indicative price of $468 million.
    The freehold Royalville off Sixth Avenue - with a guidance price of up to $350 million - also failed to attract bidders. Others with unsuccessful tenders include Dunearn Gardens, Cavenagh Gardens, The Village, Amber Glades, Grange Heights and Thomson View Condominium.

    ‘There are developers who still want to buy but the problem is that some owners are expecting obscene, sky- high prices,’ said an industry observer.

    ‘The lull may continue for a while into the first quarter,’ said Credo Real Estate managing director Karamjit Singh.

    He said developers have already acquired quite a lot of sites. ‘They don’t need to take extra risks by buying at today’s level unless they believe that there is further upside at current levels.’

    Knight Frank’s managing director Tan Tiong Cheng said: ‘Singapore definitely looks very positive… But this external sub-prime problem will affect local and foreign buying so everyone will exercise caution.’

    ‘Long-term fundamentals still look good… Buying interest should return from mid-January when people return from their holidays,’ said Mr Ku Swee Yong of Savills Singapore.

    Others, such as Mr Tan and Mr Lake, believe activity will pick up after Chinese New Year in February.

    ReplyDelete