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.

SC Meeting : 20 Sep 2011

They should consider postponing the CSA EGM as they have failed to provide owners with a draft CSA in reasonable time.

SC Minutes 8 (Edited)

5 comments:

  1. Any idea what is the mandated timeline the owners need to be informed of the details of the draft CSA?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is no mandated timeframe; there is no mention at all that owners need to be informed about the CSA. There is only an EGM "to approve the terms and conditions of the CSA". Third Schedule 7(1)(c)

    I am now convinced this is probably a hardball tactic, not necessarily by the SC, but by the professionals who might feel that the shorter the time owners have to scrutinize the document, the easier it will be to pass at the EGM.

    There is no reson why the main body was not posted with the Notice - anything missing could have been sent at a later date. To me, it is a feeble and facile excuse and is a measure of the people we are dealing with.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So technically, the SC has done no wrong. Thanks, I was under the impression that they were not forthright.

    We, the owners can decide whether we accept the CSA in it curent form. It is still in our hand.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am afraid 'technically' is not enough here. To quote from the Horizon Towers Appellate Court decision:-

    " The first principle is that an SC has to work for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. This will no doubt involve going beyond just paying lip service to the relevant procedural rules under the LTSA and its mandate under the collective sale agreement."

    The SC has a moral duty above and beyond mere statutory compliance (or looking for loopholes in the LTSA to escape culpability) to ensure that owners are not bullied, browbeaten, shortchanged, lied to or ignored.

    The SC are our trustees, and must act in the interests of all owners and not just to push the sale along regardless. They must show strength in this matter, because if they don't, then we have no hope for later on, when the real hardball tactics come in to play.

    ReplyDelete
  5. if they are technically not at fault, then it is up to the owners to decide if their action is acceptable. They can do so with the vote at the EGM or their signature on the CSA.

    Whether they are working in the interest of the owners is debatable. They are owners themselves. 80% of us will decide.

    ReplyDelete