"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.


The Tampines Court collective sale has thrown up a new fund to be managed by the Sale Committee : the ENBOC SALE FUND (ESF)

This fund was approved by a SPs at EGM 4 on 7th January 2012 through the following resolutions (and subsequently clauses 4.4.11, 11.17 and 11.18 in the CSA ) :

Further to this, the signatories to the CSA agree to pay all sorts of costs, expenses, damages and claims - some of them possibly upfront (lawyers like to be paid a retainer fee) - through clause 11.29.  The word 'contemplated' is used in that particular clause which, to the mind of a layperson such as myself, puts a new spin on the sentence as a whole.  The sale need only be 'contemplated' and not carried through. Furthermore, the definition of the 'Sales Proceeds' was tweaked in the last amendment from present tense to past perfect conditional,  now it is 'would have been paid'  - again encompassing an unreal situation.
Covering their flanks, it would seem.

What about clause 4.4.7?  Will the signatories to the CSA be asked to pay for these 'solicitors or any consultants' upfront somewhere along the line, payable into the ESF,  too?

Is the initial $220 just the tip of the iceberg?

No comments:

Post a Comment