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 ViewIt 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
Wong Hwei Ming
Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens Viewor 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:
1 comment:
There is an article in today's BT about property agents pushing enbloc sales, that may interest everyone.
Post a Comment