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.

FUTURA

High Court decision
Liu Chee Ming and Others v Loo-Lim Shirley[2008] SGHC 3
Decision date: 08 January 2008
.
This was an appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Strata Titles Board approving the collective sale of Futura condominium. Futura is a freehold 26-storey residential development located at Leonie Hill Road. The condominium comprises 72 units having a total share value of 75.
,
(What a fine looking condominium, what a monumental waste to tear it down.)
.
Summary
"62 As the appellants kept harping about the reduction of $3.7 million, it is appropriate to bear in mind that the eventual sale price was $287.3 million which was still about $7.9 million above the minimum price of $279,363,724. True, the eventual sale price did not necessarily preclude some impropriety which might show that the transaction was not in good faith but it was for the appellants to establish the absence of good faith. It was clear to me that they had taken a machine-gun approach to try and find as many faults as possible instead of focussing on the absence of good faith. They seemed not to understand that even if criticism could be levelled at the way the negotiations were conducted with CDL, that is a far cry from establishing absence of good faith. They failed to show that the Board had erred in law and I dismissed their appeal with costs"
.
UPDATE: 3 April 2008
.

What is this? their appeal against the High Court decision? Must be.

No comments:

Post a Comment