Yet ANOTHER Missing CSC Letter!!!

Once again, John Lee and his Sale Committee has continued with their tricks, despite our several warnings to be transparent and fair. Reproduced below is the letter, dated 18 April, sent by John Lee to some but NOT all owners and residents!

"18 April 2008
Dear Friends,
EN BLOC SALE OF BOTANIC GARDENS VIEW
You would by now have received by registered mail the Notice for the EOGM to be held on 3rd May 2008 at 3pm at the BGV Function Room. A second copy is enclosed for you just to make sure that you do not miss out on this important document.

At the first EOGM held on 12 th January 2008, we voted to proceed with the Collective Sale of Botanic Gardens View, and elected a 5 member Sale Committee for this purpose. This coming EOGM, we will be called to decide on the Consultants and the Lawyers to be engaged for the conduct of our Collective Sale.

The Sale Committee has worked hard to secure the services of reputable Consultants for our Collective Sale. We have received quotations form three Consultants and the Sale Committee has deliberated over the proposals. We are unanimous in our choice and will be recommending to the general body the appointment of a strong and reputable Consultant which has proposed a reserve price which is very close to our previous reserve price.

Please make every effort to attend the EOGM and join in the discussion. We value your opinion and it is important to us. If for some reason, you are unable to attend the EOGM, kindly give your proxy to someone who best represents your interest. If you wish someone from the Sale Committee to represent you, you may want to appoint either N.G. Ionides or myself as your proxy to the EOGM by 28 April 208 at the latest. Our particulars are listed below for your easy reference. Please use the enclosed return envelope to mail the completed proxy back to the BGV EN Bloc Office.”

We have, in separate posts, deplored this selective and systematic means by which John Lee and his sale committee excluded passing on important information to owners they suspect not in favour of the sale. This is NOT the first time it has happened and it is NOT a plain error! WHAT ELSE are they keeping from us as legitimate owners of BGV? THIS IS A SERIOUS CAUSE OF CONCERN AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT. STB would definitely be interested to know of such unethical and discriminatory behaviour of John Lee and his Sale Committee, and we fully intend to bring this up as discriminatory behaviour and bad faith during any and all legal proceedings!

As seen by this letter incident (and the other letters as well), John Lee and his Sale Committee is definitely not acting in the interests of all owners in BGV but namely their own interests in pushing through the en bloc of BGV. If they truly act in the interests of all owners, why then are they selective in sending out information only to certain owners? If the Sale Committee can keep information from owners they suspect are not in favour of the sale, what makes you think they might not also do the same, that is, keep important information from owners who are in favour of the sale or only give information that they think will help them push through the sale? For example, under the new law there is a 5 day cooling off period after you've signed the CSA. What is to stop them from excluding information from you that might cause you to rescind your signature within this period, UNTIL it's over and it's too late for you? Whether you are pro-sale or a stayer at BGV, there are SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS for everyone with such a Sale Committee helming the BGV en bloc.

John Lee has indicated clearly in his highly selective letter that owners should "give your proxy to someone who best represents your interest". Yet he offers only himself and Mr Ionides as proxies, as if they represent the interests of the entire estate. If you wish for any of our group to represent you, please contact us at enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com. You can send the completed proxy form to us and we will represent those who feel that the sale is untimely, unjust, and should be stopped.

Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming

things.unfair@gmail.com

Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

PS. We would like to thank yet another kind owner who sent us a copy of John Lee's 18 April letter. Thank you for your support.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM, sale committee, STB

The Missing CSC Letter

Dear fellow owners and residents,

It appears that the Sale Committee continues its tricks. Reproduced below is the letter sent by the chairman of the Sale Committee to some but not all owners and residents.

“26 March 2008

Dear Fellow Owners,

We thank those who have attended the 1st EOGM held on 12th January 2008 and for your overwhelming support (over 85%) in voting in the five members Collective Sale Committee (CSC).

We were somewhat taken by surprise when CB Richard Ellis, citing market conditions, told us that they will not consider reappointment for our collective sale. Five other major Consultants were approached to give us their proposals for the collective sale. Two of them declined.

Thankfully, the other three agreed, and have submitted their proposals to the CSC. The Committee was pleased with the proposals and the reserve prices that were suggested.

We now need to call the 2nd EOGM to discuss and decide on the appointment of the Consultant and the Lawyer who will be handling our collective sale. To do this we need to collect requisitions signed by not less than 20% of the share values or owners of BGV. The requisition is attached for the signature of the owner or one or more of the owners if the unit is under joint ownership.

Kindly sign the requisition as soon as possible and either mail or deposit the signed requisition in our letterbox at Blk 9 Taman Serasi #01-11, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore 257720. The sooner we receive your requisition, the sooner we can call the EOGM. Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.”

As you can see, if you compare it to the email cited in the last blog post, there are some significant differences.

Not least, the Sales Committee continues to make willfully misleading assertions as to the extent of its support within Botanic Gardens View. In the very first paragraph of this latest letter, it is stated that 85% (it is implied, of the whole ownership) voted for the Sale Committee.

Why do we say that this is misleading? The people who voted for the Sale Committee were NOT the entire ownership of Botanic Gardens View! They were merely those who attended the EOGM that elected the Sale Committee i.e. 53 units voted, representing 36.30% of the total estate. The Sale Committee is therefore supported by barely a THIRD of all BGV owners. This is of course a much less impressive figure, which is probably why the Sale Committee has chosen to disguise it.

The other important difference between this letter and the email is that it contains a requisition form for a 2nd EOGM. The Sale Committee, obviously, did NOT send this form to those owners who only received the email. We leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why the Sale Committee might be engaging in this frankly unethical and discriminatory behaviour and continues to engage in such behaviour as with an earlier letter which was only sent to some owners and residents.

The 2nd EOGM will ask us to approve the appointment of the new property consultant and a law firm. We ask you to consider very seriously whether you wish to place your trust in these persons, in view of the fact that several reputable agencies have already declined the Sale Committee’s business.

Any Collective Sales Agreement produced in such suspicious circumstances should be examined with even more care than we have already recommended. It should be a provision of the Collective Sales Agreement that each member of the Sale Committee should fully indemnify the owners for any loss or damage arising out of their actions or negligence in the attempted enbloc sale. The owners should NOT be the ones indemnifying the Sale Committee as we have seen in some other collective sales agreements. Given the less-than-transparent attitude of the Sale Committee, and given that our estate will almost certainly receive bids from major developers with large financial and legal clout, we are rightly concerned that the nightmares that have faced owners of other en bloc’d estates caught out by irresponsible Sale Committees, will occur to us. It is NOT sufficient that we ‘implicitly trust’ our Sale Committee; there must be legal protection for us owners who should not be the brunt of any legal proceedings.

There should also be a performance guarantee by any purchaser. This will protect signatories who have incurred costs, such as in the purchase of a replacement property, in the event that a buyer withdraws from the sale agreement, as occurred recently in the case of Tulip Garden and Pender Court where the purchaser, Bravo has postponed several times the settlement dates for both sales.

Any Collective Sales Agreement that does not contain these provisions will put the owners at great disadvantage.

In conclusion, we note that if the Collective Sales Agreement achieves 80% support, even non-signatories will be caught by its provisions, however disadvantageous they may be to our interests. We therefore urge everyone, once more, to keep our signatures to ourselves, in defence of those interests.


Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street

Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming

things.unfair@gmail.com

Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

PS. We would like to thank the owner who alerted us to the above letter which was sent by the CSC chairman to selected owners. We would also like to thank all owners and residents who have shown us support and who continue to give us support.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM, Collective Sales Agreement