"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.

SC 'get out of jail' card

Paragraph 10 in the Third Schedule is interesting because of it's absurdity :
10. Any act or proceeding of a collective sale committee done in good faith shall, notwithstanding at the time when the act or proceeding was done, taken or commenced there was -

(a) a vacancy in the office of a member of the collective sale committee; or

(b) any defect in the appointment, or any disqualification of any such member, be as valid as if the vacancy, defect or disqualification did not exist and the collective sale committee were fully and properly constituted.
This has the effect of nullifying the preceding rules about how sale committee members are to be elected. My goodness! Any act of the sale committee is deemed to be valid REGARDLESS of whether or not the SC were fully and properly constituted!
So why the election charade in the first place? Why go through the motions of a futile SC selection when it can all be legally void in the end? Is it just a cynical overture at appeasing owners and creating the illusion that their choices matter? Or is it to cut the legs off any legitimate challenge made at the STB by minority owners who can prove that the the LTSA procedures were not properly followed. Either way, the famous, oft quoted, false parliamentary assurance that there are 'safeguards" and that they can be found in the LTSA rules themselves is clearly being negated by this paradoxical paragraph.

No comments:

Post a Comment