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.

Further musings on the draft CSA (dated 23 August)

Take a very close look at clause 8.3

I do believe the sale price cannot be below the valuation done at close of tender. If the valuation is higher than the RP then the valuation trumps, the RP is bumped up to match the valuation. 

Surely, Sellers CANNOT  'approve' to sell the land at an undervalue - and that means at an RP or proposed sale price lower that the valuation.

So, the situation envisioned in 8.3 cannot happen - so this clause is complete nonsense and should be scrapped.

If the valuation is at the RP or higher and the proposed sale price is lower - then  that is where shenanigans come into play. The SC/MA will seek a new valuation to match the lower proposed sale price.

And miracles are performed.

This is the reason for the blank cheque in  4.4.1

No comments:

Post a Comment