reporter2
27-06-13, 15:23
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/premium/top-stories/payment-favour-not-inducement-thomson-view-agent-20130627
Published June 27, 2013
Payment a favour, not an inducement: Thomson View agent
By Grace Leong
[SINGAPORE] The marketing agent of Thomson View Condominium yesterday repeatedly denied that incentive payments for the owners of four units were an inducement to join a $590 million en-bloc sale, flummoxing the judge in the process. Under cross-examination by the defence, Goh Hock Seng, head of investment sales of HSR International Realtors, said that the owners - Sauw Tjiauw Koe; Goh Mia Song and Lim Choe San; Tang Siew Kwong and Julie Tan Bee Leng - had "asked" for the payments and "signed the collective sale agreement voluntarily".
High Court Justice Andrew Ang then interjected: "How could you say that? I don't understand you. How is it not an inducement? . . . Without payment, the (subsidiary proprietors) won't sell. With payment, they agreed to sell. Is that not an inducement?"
Mr Goh said: "I really can't answer that question."
Later he added: "This is a favour to help them sign the collective sale agreement. We are the ones who suffer. Nobody in the entire Thomson View suffered. This is something we felt we had to do for the sake of the people who really need to sell."
Acknowledging that the incentive arrangements were individually negotiated, he maintained that the owners of the four units "all came with their own requests".
"We are not the ones who started all this. It is the owners that came to us, told us their requirements, their demands. That's why they came in all different shapes and sizes."
But Adrian Tan of Drew & Napier LLC, who represents several owners objecting to the sale, asked if other owners would be unfairly treated because of HSR's secret arrangement with the four units' owners.
Mr Goh responded: "I don't need to give an answer."
Mr Tan also cast doubt on Mr Goh's claim that HSR didn't involve the Collective Sale Committee (CSC) or tell the other owners about the incentive payments supposedly because the problem had to be solved quickly in view of the pending expiration of the collective sale agreement and that "too many cooks would spoil the broth".
"What you meant was if too many people knew of your arrangement with Madam Koe, they would be upset and refuse to support the Collective Sale Agreement," he said.
Mr Goh replied: "People shouldn't be jealous if other people get more money."
In Madam Koe's case, HSR agreed to pay her 10 per cent more on top of the final purchase price for her properties.
Mr Goh also denied having agreed to pay Mr Goh Mia Song's legal fees to Seah Ong & Partners LLP, the law firm handling the Thomson View collective sale.
But he later admitted to the incentive arrangement after Judge Ang noted that he was "prevaricating" and Mr Tan said that he was "lying to the court".
Citing HSR lawyers' letter to lawyers for the consenting owners, Mr Tan said that HSR had agreed to procure a waiver of legal fees payable by Mr Goh Mia Song to Seah Ong.
But Seah Ong didn't agree to waive its legal fees and HSR ended up "picking the bad end of the stick", Mr Goh said.
He also said that he didn't check with lawyers if the incentive payments he had given were legal but believed they weren't prohibited by the Strata Titles Board.
But he admitted to keeping the arrangement confidential because he didn't want to be hounded by other owners for similar sweeteners.
In objecting to the sale of the 255-unit site to a joint venture of Wee Hur Development and Lucrum Capital, a group of owners of 12 units cited secret payments of about $548,000 that HSR had made to the owners of the four units and travel expense reimbursements to one other owner to get the required 80 per cent majority consent.
That, they said, amounts to bad faith and a breach of HSR's and the CSC's duties, and thus, the sale shouldn't be approved.
The objecting owners also felt that the $590 million price "grossly undervalued" the site, and allegedly did not take into account the announcement that the Upper Thomson MRT Station would be built next to Thomson View.
But lawyers for Thomson View CSC chairwoman Philomene Ngui and two other CSC members, who represent the consenting owners, argued that the objecting owners have not made out their case as they have not shown that the CSC acted dishonestly or in bad faith in the sale process.
Published June 27, 2013
Payment a favour, not an inducement: Thomson View agent
By Grace Leong
[SINGAPORE] The marketing agent of Thomson View Condominium yesterday repeatedly denied that incentive payments for the owners of four units were an inducement to join a $590 million en-bloc sale, flummoxing the judge in the process. Under cross-examination by the defence, Goh Hock Seng, head of investment sales of HSR International Realtors, said that the owners - Sauw Tjiauw Koe; Goh Mia Song and Lim Choe San; Tang Siew Kwong and Julie Tan Bee Leng - had "asked" for the payments and "signed the collective sale agreement voluntarily".
High Court Justice Andrew Ang then interjected: "How could you say that? I don't understand you. How is it not an inducement? . . . Without payment, the (subsidiary proprietors) won't sell. With payment, they agreed to sell. Is that not an inducement?"
Mr Goh said: "I really can't answer that question."
Later he added: "This is a favour to help them sign the collective sale agreement. We are the ones who suffer. Nobody in the entire Thomson View suffered. This is something we felt we had to do for the sake of the people who really need to sell."
Acknowledging that the incentive arrangements were individually negotiated, he maintained that the owners of the four units "all came with their own requests".
"We are not the ones who started all this. It is the owners that came to us, told us their requirements, their demands. That's why they came in all different shapes and sizes."
But Adrian Tan of Drew & Napier LLC, who represents several owners objecting to the sale, asked if other owners would be unfairly treated because of HSR's secret arrangement with the four units' owners.
Mr Goh responded: "I don't need to give an answer."
Mr Tan also cast doubt on Mr Goh's claim that HSR didn't involve the Collective Sale Committee (CSC) or tell the other owners about the incentive payments supposedly because the problem had to be solved quickly in view of the pending expiration of the collective sale agreement and that "too many cooks would spoil the broth".
"What you meant was if too many people knew of your arrangement with Madam Koe, they would be upset and refuse to support the Collective Sale Agreement," he said.
Mr Goh replied: "People shouldn't be jealous if other people get more money."
In Madam Koe's case, HSR agreed to pay her 10 per cent more on top of the final purchase price for her properties.
Mr Goh also denied having agreed to pay Mr Goh Mia Song's legal fees to Seah Ong & Partners LLP, the law firm handling the Thomson View collective sale.
But he later admitted to the incentive arrangement after Judge Ang noted that he was "prevaricating" and Mr Tan said that he was "lying to the court".
Citing HSR lawyers' letter to lawyers for the consenting owners, Mr Tan said that HSR had agreed to procure a waiver of legal fees payable by Mr Goh Mia Song to Seah Ong.
But Seah Ong didn't agree to waive its legal fees and HSR ended up "picking the bad end of the stick", Mr Goh said.
He also said that he didn't check with lawyers if the incentive payments he had given were legal but believed they weren't prohibited by the Strata Titles Board.
But he admitted to keeping the arrangement confidential because he didn't want to be hounded by other owners for similar sweeteners.
In objecting to the sale of the 255-unit site to a joint venture of Wee Hur Development and Lucrum Capital, a group of owners of 12 units cited secret payments of about $548,000 that HSR had made to the owners of the four units and travel expense reimbursements to one other owner to get the required 80 per cent majority consent.
That, they said, amounts to bad faith and a breach of HSR's and the CSC's duties, and thus, the sale shouldn't be approved.
The objecting owners also felt that the $590 million price "grossly undervalued" the site, and allegedly did not take into account the announcement that the Upper Thomson MRT Station would be built next to Thomson View.
But lawyers for Thomson View CSC chairwoman Philomene Ngui and two other CSC members, who represent the consenting owners, argued that the objecting owners have not made out their case as they have not shown that the CSC acted dishonestly or in bad faith in the sale process.