Latest news with #AudreyLim
Business Times
01-07-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Judge gives green light for S$810 million Thomson View en bloc sale
[SINGAPORE] The High Court has granted a sale order for Thomson View's S$810 million collective sale on Tuesday (Jul 1), allowing the sale to proceed after it was disrupted by a stop order in March due to objections from a small group of owners. In a packed courtroom, Justice Audrey Lim said: 'Having considered the further affidavit of the respondents and there are no objections by the subsidiary proprietors, I will grant the application.' Justice Lim's statement on Tuesday comes after the case took an unexpected twist in May, when the judge pointed out during a court hearing that some of the signatures needed for the deal to proceed had been obtained outside a mandated 12-month period. Thomson View is the largest en bloc deal done in Singapore since Chuan Park's S$890 million sale in May 2023. Owners stand to receive between S$2.2 million and S$4.9 million each, depending on the size of their units, which range from 122 to 357 sq m, marketing agent ETC said. Thomson View, located on Bright Hill Road, was put up for tender in February 2024, but did not close a sale when it ended in September. The condominium houses 200 apartments, 54 townhouses and a shop unit. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Tuesday, 12 pm Property Insights Get an exclusive analysis of real estate and property news in Singapore and beyond. Sign Up Sign Up In March 2025, the condominium's collective sale was met with a stop order after efforts to mediate and resolve objections from a small group of owners were unsuccessful. All six of the objectors have since withdrawn their objections. The Business Times understands that some of the objections were related to the reserve price for the sale of the property, which was lowered by 12 per cent from S$918 million to S$808 million around October 2024. The reduction of the reserve price, set out in a supplementary agreement, allowed the owners to accept the S$810 million offer from developers UOL, Singapore Land and CapitaLand Development (CLD). When the case subsequently went to court in May 2025, Justice Lim pointed out that 206 signatures in favour of the collective sale appeared to have been obtained outside the 12-month period that the collective sale committee was given to secure 80 per cent of unitholders' signatures. Justice Lim had asked Hui Choon Wai, a partner at law firm Wee Swee Teow, which was representing the collective sale committee, to file another affidavit to explain how the collective sale agreement (CSA) and supplementary agreement differed, and why 210 unitholders signed the CSA, but only 206 signed the supplementary one. The further affidavit was filed within three weeks of May 2025. In response to queries from BT, Wee Swee Teow real estate partner Alan Tan said: 'There is no doubt that we obtained the requisite 80 per cent during the permitted time of 12 months commencing from the first signature of the CSA.' Tan noted that owners for 210 units signed the CSA during the permitted time. After the permitted time, owners of 206 units signed a supplemental agreement. During the collective sale process, some owners also sold their units in the open market to new buyers who signed the CSA and the supplementary agreement. BT understands some of these signatures were collected after the 12-month period ended on Jan 7, 2024. 'This is one of two reasons why the CSA appears to have signatures out of the permitted time, since we had exhibited all signature pages for transparency,' Tan said. 'The other reason being that there are some owners subsequently who supported the collective sale after the permitted time period, particularly when a purchaser was found. They were then made to sign both the collective sale agreement and supplemental agreement.' On Jul 1, Justice Lim awarded the collective sale committee costs of S$5,000 and a disbursement of S$3,829.20. The costs will be borne by the six objectors. CLD and UOL said on Tuesday: 'We are pleased to expand our joint venture portfolio with this strategic acquisition. The progress of this sale puts us on track to leverage our combined expertise to rejuvenate and contribute to the vibrancy of this prime estate.' ETC head of investment advisory Swee Shou Fern said: 'The collective sale journey is rarely linear, but ETC is proud to have guided the owners through the challenges with clarity and conviction.' The final price tag of S$810 million works out to S$1,178 per square foot per plot ratio for the 5-hectare site, which UOL, SingLand and CLD plan to redevelop into a 1,240-unit project.
Business Times
01-07-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Judge approves S$810 million Thomson View en bloc sale
[SINGAPORE] The High Court has granted a sale order for Thomson View's S$810 million collective sale on Tuesday (Jul 1), allowing the sale to proceed after it was disrupted by a stop order in March due to objections from a small group of owners. In a packed courtroom, Justice Audrey Lim said: 'Having considered the further affidavit of the respondents and there are no objections by the subsidiary proprietors, I will grant the application.' Justice Lim's statement on Tuesday comes after the case took an unexpected twist in May, when the judge pointed out during a court hearing that some of the signatures needed for the deal to proceed had been obtained outside a mandated 12-month period. Thomson View is the largest en bloc deal done in Singapore since Chuan Park's S$890 million sale in May 2023. Owners stand to receive between S$2.2 million and S$4.9 million each depending on the size of their units which range from 122 to 357 sq m, marketing agent ETC said. Thomson View, located on Bright Hill Road, was put up for tender in February 2024, but did not close a sale when it closed in September. The condominium houses 200 apartments, 54 townhouses and a shop unit. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Tuesday, 12 pm Property Insights Get an exclusive analysis of real estate and property news in Singapore and beyond. Sign Up Sign Up In March 2025, the condominium's collective sale was met with a stop order after efforts to mediate and resolve objections from a small group of owners were unsuccessful. All six of the objectors have since withdrawn their objections. BT understands that some of the objections were related to the reserve price for the sale of the property, which was lowered by 12 per cent from $918 million to S$808 million around October 2024. The reduction of the reserve price, set out in a supplementary agreement, allowed the owners to accept the S$810 million offer from developers UOL, Singapore Land and CapitaLand Development (CLD). When the case subsequently went to court in May 2025, Justice Lim pointed out that 206 signatures in favour of the collective sale appeared to have been obtained outside the 12-month period that the collective sale committee was given to secure 80 per cent of unitholders' signatures. Justice Lim had asked Hui Choon Wai, a partner at law firm Wee Swee Teow, which was representing the collective sale committee, to file another affidavit to explain how the collective sale agreement (CSA) and supplementary agreement differed, and why 210 unitholders signed the collective sale agreement, but only 206 signed the supplementary one. The further affidavit was filed within three weeks of May 2025. In response to queries from The Business Times, Wee Swee Teow real estate partner Alan Tan said: 'There is no doubt that we obtained the requisite 80 per cent during the permitted time of 12 months commencing from the first signature of the CSA.' Tan noted that owners for 210 units signed the CSA during the permitted time. After the permitted time, owners of 206 units signed a supplemental agreement. During the collective sale process, some owners also sold their units in the open market to new buyers who signed the collective sale agreement and the supplementary agreement. BT understands some of these signatures were collected after the 12-month period ended Jan 7, 2024. 'This is one of two reasons why the collective sale agreement appears to have signatures out of the permitted time since we had exhibited all signature pages for transparency,' Tan said. 'The other reason being that there are some owners subsequently who supported the collective sale after the permitted time period, particularly when a purchaser was found. They were then made to sign both the collective sale agreement and supplemental agreement.' On Jul 1, Justice Lim awarded the collective sale committee costs of S$5,000 and a disbursement of S$3,829.20. The costs will be borne by the six objectors. CLD and UOL said on Tuesday: 'We are pleased to expand our joint venture portfolio with this strategic acquisition. The progress of this sale puts us on track to leverage our combined expertise to rejuvenate and contribute to the vibrancy of this prime estate.' ETC head of investment advisory Swee Shou Fern said: 'The collective sale journey is rarely linear but ETC is proud to have guided the owners through the challenges with clarity and conviction.' The final price tag of S$810 million works out to S$1,178 per square foot per plot ratio for the five-hectare site, which UOL, SingLand and CLD plan to redevelop into a 1,240 unit project.
Singapore Law Watch
28-05-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Judge okays bulk of $32.1m claim by Ascendas against defunct Park Hotel Clarke Quay operator
Judge okays bulk of $32.1m claim by Ascendas against defunct Park Hotel Clarke Quay operator Source: Straits Times Article Date: 28 May 2025 Author: Grace Leong The hotel was renamed Riverside Hotel Robertson Quay after CapitaLand unit AIMPL took over from August 2021 to September 2022. Ascendas Hospitality Reit (AH-Reit), the landlord of the former Park Hotel Clarke Quay property in Unity Street, was allowed to claim the bulk of a $32.1 million sum for unpaid rent and other charges against the defunct former operator Park Hotel CQ (PHCQ) under a High Court ruling on May 23. High Court Justice Audrey Lim reduced AH-Reit's proof of debt to $31.1 million, after excluding $273,792 in property tax from Oct 1, 2022, to June 27, 2023, and costs totalling $679,454. PHCQ was wound up by the High Court on Nov 19, 2021. This came after AH-Reit terminated its master lease with PHCQ on Aug 28, 2021, and took possession of the property after the hotel operator failed to pay $5.92 million in debt. The hotel was then renamed Riverside Hotel Robertson Quay after CapitaLand unit Ascott International Management (AIMPL) took over from August 2021 to September 2022. It was subsequently rebranded as The Robertson House by The Crest Collection, which opened in October 2023. The $32.1 million claim comprises unpaid rent by PHCQ, charges payable during the handover of the property, property tax and other costs. About $25 million of the claim was disputed by another PHCQ creditor, Park Hotel Group Management (PHGM). PHGM is owned by British Virgin Islands-incorporated Good Movement Holdings which is, in turn, owned by Mr Allen Law Ching Hung, the son of Hong Kong-based billionaire Law Kar Po. Mr Allen Law was also the sole director and chief executive of PHCQ from April 3, 2013, until March 16, 2021, when he stepped down. The $32.1 million claim includes a claim for net rent of $20.4 million for the remainder of the lease from Aug 28, 2021, to June 27, 2023. This comprises $27.2 million of rent, minus $8.2 million plus GST, the income earned by AH-Reit during that period to reduce its rental losses from PHCQ's early termination. PHGM argued that the liquidators had accepted the $8.2 million earned income figure without properly considering if AH-Reit had taken adequate measures to reduce its rental losses and whether it was reasonable to allow AIMPL, an entity related to AH-Reit, to operate the property from Aug 28, 2021, to Sept 29, 2022. PHGM added that, instead of leasing the property to an independent third party, AH-Reit had subsequently entered into a related-party transaction with Ascott Hospitality Business Trust (AHBT) from Oct 1, 2022 onwards, with AIMPL continuing to manage the property. But Justice Lim ruled that she did not find the arrangement 'unreasonable', and said the liquidators of PHCQ had 'properly' accepted AH-Reit's claim pertaining to $20.4 million in unpaid rent. Furthermore, she agreed with the liquidators that it was speculative to assume that AH-Reit could have found another tenant willing to pay a higher rent. 'The property was essentially a hotel and the remaining duration of the lease, had it not been terminated, was short. At the time, Singapore was also just emerging from the Covid-19 pandemic,' said Justice Lim. It is unclear how AH-Reit would have been able to find another tenant that would have been willing to take over the property's lease and run the hotel, she added. Although the judge ruled it was reasonable for AH-Reit to lease the property to AHBT from Oct 1, 2022, onwards, she reduced the claims for property tax incurred by AH-Reit for the period from Oct 1, 2022, to June 27, 2023. 'Neither AH-Reit nor the liquidators have explained why AH-Reit did not impose the obligation to pay property tax on AHBT under the AHBT lease, nor why the tax was borne by AH-Reit,' she noted. 'That the AHBT lease did not include an obligation on AHBT to bear the property tax is to be contrasted with the lease wherein PHCQ bore such an obligation,' she said. 'AH-Reit appears to have treated AHBT more favourably (compared with PHCQ) by not imposing an obligation on AHBT to pay property tax, only to then claim the property tax from PHCQ instead.' She pointed out that the liquidators' acceptance of AH-Reit's property tax claim, made seemingly without any scrutiny, was unsatisfactory. However, Justice Lim allowed the claim for $2.4 million in charges payable for the handover of the property from July 1, 2021, to Aug 27, 2021. PHGM had disputed the claim, saying there was no explanation for why the handover of the property by PHCQ to AH-Reit took nearly two months when it could have been done in a day, and why the lease was terminated on Aug 28, 2021. The liquidators argued that 'to ensure a proper handover, sufficient time was needed for AH-Reit to get information on the hotel operations and for PHCQ to prepare the asset listing and liaise with various parties on the novation or termination of its existing contracts'. PHCQ also had an agreement with the Singapore Land Authority during the pandemic to operate the property as a government quarantine facility (GQF) until Aug 27, 2021. Hence, it was not unreasonable for AH-Reit to defer the property handover until it had obtained the licences or approvals to operate the property as a GQF if this would enable the property to generate a steady stream of income and reduce the amounts payable by PHCQ, the judge ruled. Furthermore, PHCQ and AIMPL had to work with the National Trades Union Congress to ensure a smooth handover of employees. 'I am satisfied that the two-month handover period was not objectionable,' the judge ruled. Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Straits Times
27-05-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Judge Oks bulk of $32.1 million claim against defunct Park Hotel Clarke Quay operator
The hotel was renamed Riverside Hotel Robertson Quay after CapitaLand unit AIMPL took over from August 2021 to September 2022. PHOTO: ST FILE SINGAPORE – Ascendas Hospitality Reit (AH-Reit), the landlord of the former Park Hotel Clarke Quay property in Unity Street, was allowed to claim the bulk of a $32.1 million sum for unpaid rent and other charges against the defunct former operator Park Hotel CQ (PHCQ) under a High Court ruling on May 23. High Court Justice Audrey Lim reduced AH-Reit's proof of debt to $31.1 million, after excluding $273,792 in property tax from Oct 1, 2022, to June 27, 2023, and costs totalling $679,454. PHCQ was wound up by the High Court on Nov 19, 2021. This came after AH-Reit terminated its master lease with PHCQ on Aug 28, 2021, and took possession of the property after the hotel operator failed to pay $5.92 million in debt. The hotel was then renamed Riverside Hotel Robertson Quay after CapitaLand unit Ascott International Management (AIMPL) took over from August 2021 to September 2022. It was subsequently rebranded as The Robertson House by The Crest Collection, which opened in October 2023. The $32.1 million claim comprises unpaid rent by PHCQ, charges payable during the handover of the property, property tax and other costs. About $25 million of the claim was disputed by another PHCQ creditor Park Hotel Group Management (PHGM). PHGM is owned by British Virgin Islands-incorporated Good Movement Holdings which is, in turn, owned by Mr Allen Law Ching Hung, the son of Hong Kong-based billionaire Law Kar Po. Mr Allen Law was also the sole director and chief executive of PHCQ from April 3, 2013 until March 16, 2021, when he stepped down. The $32.1 million claim includes a claim for net rent of $20.4 million for the remainder of the lease from Aug 28, 2021 to June 27, 2023. This comprises $27.2 million of rent, minus $8.2 million plus GST, the income earned by AH-Reit during that period to reduce its rental losses from PHCQ's early termination. PHGM argued that the liquidators had accepted the $8.2 million earned income figure without properly considering if AH-Reit had taken adequate measures to reduce its rental losses and whether it was reasonable to allow AIMPL, an entity related to AH-Reit, to operate the property from Aug 28, 2021, to Sept 29, 2022. PHGM added that, instead of leasing the property to an independent third party, AH-Reit had subsequently entered into a related-party transaction with Ascott Hospitality Business Trust (AHBT) from Oct 1, 2022 onwards, with AIMPL continuing to manage the property. But Justice Lim ruled that she did not find the arrangement 'unreasonable', and said the liquidators of PHCQ had 'properly' accepted AH-Reit's claim pertaining to $20.4 million in unpaid rent. Furthermore, she agreed with the liquidators that it was speculative to assume that AH-Reit could have found another tenant willing to pay a higher rent . 'The property was essentially a hotel and the remaining duration of the lease, had it not been terminated, was short. At the time, Singapore was also just emerging from the Covid-19 pandemic,' said Justice Lim. It is unclear how AH-Reit would have been able to find another tenant that would have been willing to take over the property's lease and run the hotel, she added. Although the judge ruled it was reasonable for AH-Reit to lease the property to AHBT from Oct 1, 2022 onwards, she reduced the claims for property tax incurred by AH-Reit for the period from Oct 1, 2022 to June 27, 2023. 'Neither AH-Reit nor the liquidators have explained why AH-Reit did not impose the obligation to pay property tax on AHBT under the AHBT lease, nor why the tax was borne by AH-Reit,' she noted. 'That the AHBT lease did not include an obligation on AHBT to bear the property tax is to be contrasted with the lease wherein PHCQ bore such an obligation,' she said. 'AH-Reit appears to have treated AHBT more favourably ( compared with PHCQ) by not imposing an obligation on AHBT to pay property tax, only to then claim the property tax from PHCQ instead.' She pointed out that the liquidators' acceptance of AH-Reit's property tax claim, made seemingly without any scrutiny, was unsatisfactory. However, Justice Lim allowed the claim for $2.4 million in charges payable for the handover of the property from July 1, 2021 to Aug 27, 2021. PHGM had disputed the claim, saying there was no explanation for why the handover of the property by PHCQ to AH-Reit took nearly two months when it could have been done in a day, and why the lease was terminated on Aug 28, 2021. The liquidators argued that 'to ensure a proper handover, sufficient time was needed for AH-Reit to get information on the hotel operations and for PHCQ to prepare the asset listing and liaise with various parties on the novation or termination of its existing contracts'. PHCQ also had an agreement with the Singapore Land Authority during the pandemic to operate the property as a government quarantine facility (GQF) until Aug 27, 2021. Hence, it was not unreasonable for AH-Reit to defer the property handover until it had obtained the licences or approvals to operate the property as a GQF if this would enable the property to generate a steady stream of income and reduce the amounts payable by PHCQ, the judge ruled. Furthermore, PHCQ and AIMPL had to work with the National Trades Union Congress to ensure a smooth handover of employees. 'I am satisfied that the two-month handover period was not objectionable,' the judge ruled. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
Straits Times
22-05-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Thomson View's $810 million sale put on hold after lawyers submitted ‘incomplete' documents
UOL, SingLand and CLD signed a conditional call-and-put option in October 2024 to acquire the 99-year leasehold development at $810 million. PHOTO: THE BUSINESS TIMES SINGAPORE - The $810 million sale of Thomson View condominium was put on hold by a High Court judge after the lawyers representing the collective sale committee (CSC) submitted 'incomplete' documents. At least 25 residents and parties related to the Thomson View sale packed the courtroom on May 22, awaiting the High Court's ruling on the fate of the $810 million sale, potentially the biggest residential collective sale since Chuan Park's $890 million sale in May 2023. High Court Judge Audrey Lim spent a better part of the hearing dressing down the lawyers of the Thomson View CSC for errors in documents, including submitting an 'incomplete' affidavit, and told them 'it is important you do the proper due diligence'. Thomson View was sold to UOL, Singapore Land (SingLand) and CapitaLand Development (CLD), after at least 80 per cent of owners (206 units) consented to lower their reserve price to $808 million, allowing them to accept the $810 million offer that was below their original reserve price of $918 million. UOL, SingLand and CLD signed a conditional call-and-put option in October 2024 to acquire the 99-year leasehold development at $810 million. On Nov 25, 2024, UOL announced that it had exercised the call option for the purchase. In trying to determine if the 80 per cent threshold was met, Justice Lim sought clarifications on the number of signatures in the collective sale agreement (CSA) dated Jan 4, 2024, and the number of signatures in a supplementary collective sale agreement. The judge pointed out that 'the first time period to obtain all the signatures to cross the 80 per cent threshold is 12 months from the first signature, which means that all 206 signatures must be obtained between Jan 8, 2023, and Jan 7, 2024. 'Some of the signatures are signed out of the time period in October and November 2024,' Justice Lim noted. CSC lawyer Hui Choon Wai, a partner at Wee Seow Teow LLP, told the court that 'there were 211 unit holders' signatures on the CSA, of which 206 signed the supplementary agreement'. Justice Lim then asked Ms Hui to explain in another affidavit 'how the CSA and the supplementary CSA differs, in that the CSA contained 211 unit holders' signatures and the supplementary CSA contained 206 of these unit holders' signatures.' 'For the supplementary affidavit, it should only exhibit the extra five unit holders' signatures which are not found in the CSA already exhibited in (CSC member) Cecilia Koh's first affidavit. 'The affidavit should also explain how many of these unit holders signed between Jan 8, 2023, and Jan 7, 2024, and what proportion in terms of shares and plot size they comprise, and whether the 80 per cent requirement was met within the 12-month period,' the judge said. 'The affidavit should also explain that for those signatures that I have pointed out, that are after Jan 7, 2024, how many units they comprise and what is the proportion in terms of shares and plot size,' Justice Lim added. 'If the 80 per cent threshold is not made out, counsel is to file written submissions to explain why the court should grant this application' to approve the sale, Justice Lim said. 'It is important you do the proper due diligence,' the judge said. 'You spent a lot of time trying to get the requisite (80 per cent) threshold... and you have errors all over the place,' she added. A group of dissenting homeowners had filed objections to the Strata Titles Boards (STB) , which stopped the en bloc process after mediation efforts failed. It is unclear on what grounds they objected to the sale. Two of the six dissenting homeowners – Goh Mia Song and Lim Choe San – who had withdrawn their objections on March 29, were at the hearing. When asked by The Straits Times why they had objected initially, both declined to comment. The other four dissenting parties did not attend the hearing. They had withdrawn their objections one day before the CSC applied to the High Court on March 28 to seek approval for the sale. Apart from the stop order issued on March 19 for Thomson View, there have been no other stop orders issued for collective sales so far in 2025, an STB spokesperson told ST. The next court mention is July 1. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
