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.

Appeal ongoing

The appeal by the majority to bring the date forward has not been decided upon yet. It is a 2 stage process for 'Quashing Orders '.

With due process and by law, there must be 8 clear days between the serving of the summons and the actual day of the hearing. But the minority lawyers have been given just one and a half days to prepare. The second day of the hearing for this appeal will therefore be heard on Friday afternoon.

13 comments:

  1. Anonymous17 July, 2008

    If 20% want to stay in their comfort zone, should the other 80% be made to forgo a better future?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous17 July, 2008

    sounds you are really disappointed for not being given 8 days. Where is the worry?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous17 July, 2008

    Hi

    I am quiet sad to note that the time given to minortity is only 1 and half day to prepare

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous17 July, 2008

    Hi, I am just a wee bit confused at the moment. As i understand matters at present, the STB hearing has one more day which has been fixed after the 25th July deadline.

    The majority has filed proceedings in the High Court to seek an earlier date and this is where I am a bit confused, this High Court matter is going to be heard tomorrow afternoon??

    Would you by any chance have a copy of their application to the High Court and if so, could you set out what orders they are asking the High Court to make??

    Thanks a lot and great blog you have here, very informative and non biased, exactly the way it should be!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous17 July, 2008

    so can the en bloc on-going or not ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous17 July, 2008

    It looks like time is not on majority's side. Any sign of them giving up the flight in this last lap of battle?

    ReplyDelete
  7. To'a wee bit confused'.

    The 1 day left of STB Hearing has been fixed for the 7 Aug - after the expiry date 25 July. Hence the present application to the High Court by the majority to quash the STB decision not to change the date.The Attorney General is sitting on the sidelines and is not going to defend the STB, which is a shocker. As I said, it has been split int 2 days, leaving little time for the minority lawyers to prepare.

    The application is 4 inches tick and I have no time today to wade through it again. Sorry

    ReplyDelete
  8. To 'sounds like'

    I'm a stickler for due process,and fairness. This delay is not of the minority's making. This appeal is not made by the minority. We are not the defaulting party.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous17 July, 2008

    I am one of the majority who put our trust and faith with the enbloc lawyers, property agent and most of all the SC.

    Even to this date as I am, I strongly believe most of the majority hope that this deal would not go thru. Many of the majority feel that we have been cheated of a true process in the sale. All can be said but the small lines which has been indicated in the S&P that "terms and conditions can be changed except the reserve price of our unit" has really changed our life in expectation of a better future.

    From what I have gathered the majority who have signed the S&P has fear that if they oppose the sale, they would be sued.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The majority choose to live in fear. They choose to let themselves be bullied and cowed by words. They take threats at face value and don't bother to find out whether there is any basis to them.

    It's sad, but you let yourselves be drowned out by the vocal few, and one in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous17 July, 2008

    Why would the 80% have to forego better future! The 80% surely would know how to sell ON THEIR OWN their own house without involving the 20%!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous18 July, 2008

    The many of the 80% know how to sell on their OWN. However the SC does not how to sell or where to get accurate information. Alot of things also "don't know".
    Many of majority express regret not at the price it was sold (and know they had been short changed) but at the way the en-bloc was done that resulted is this lack of good faith.
    The CSA allows the SC to change anything except the reserved price, so even if the majority disagree with the SC, they will have no choice... Its just simply the 80% being locked in by a bad deal they can't back out. Lesson learnt they say, never to sign any deals without looking at the fine prints!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous18 July, 2008

    I still do not understand what the person is talking about when he/she is saying that "why would the 80% have to forego better future!" Is this person saying that with this money we are going to get minus knows not what deductions from the sale price, now with the legal appeal going on, which will be on our ac then looking out for a unit after the proceedings with the escalating HDB prices which is what we can buy now. Never a condo.

    I FEE CHEATED THAT WITH THE DEVELOPER WANTING TO WITHDRAW ON EXPIRY DATE OF S&P THE MAJORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN A CHANCE FOR A MANDATE INSTEAD OF HOLDING THEM AGAINST THE SIGNATURE INKED A YEAR AGO. THE DEVELOPER IS NOT WANTING TO SUE ASK IF WE BACK OUT.

    ReplyDelete