Jump to content

  • 1
  • Search this thread
  • Reply to this topic
4 replies to this topic | 5 praises

#1

Posted 24 May 2018 - 10:38 AM

Sdf4786k
  • THREAD STARTER
  • Premium member
    Sdf4786k
    Turbocharged
    The points of the user determines the rank. The higher the points, the higher the rank.
    Author Image
    The bar represents the rank and points of the user. The longer the bar, the higher the rank and points.
     
    Points:
    Points are accumulated from other users who Praise or Disliked this users' posts.
    8,500
      Joined: 26 December 2007
      Posts: 3,777
     

in the previous episode, house of Tan did a quick flip from 60 to 90 mil.

 

Now I wonder how much higher it can go.

 

But filpping and earning the profit, is it still taxable ?

 

or once you pay the stamp duties already done deal liao ?

 

Since you cannot happy happy redevelop , how to get more from this kind of property ?

 

THE House of Tan Yeok Nee, a gazetted national monument alongPenang Road, is back on the market, a year after it was last transacted.

 

Its owner, a special purpose vehicle of ERC Holdings, is believed to be looking at a price of over $100 million. It purchased the freehold property at slightly over $60 million last year.

 

When contacted, ERC chairman Andy Ong said he was selling the asset as it has "reached its investment objective".

 

"We usually make property investments with a five to seven-year investment horizon. But in this case, we have reached the expected price sooner than expected because of macro-economic factors such as liquidity, and strong investment demand for Singapore commercial property. On top of that, this is a one-of-its-kind property: It is the last remaining traditional Chinese courtyard house in Singapore."

 

The House of Tan Yeok Nee is named after a wealthy Teochew businessman who built it in the 1880s. It was restored in 2000.

 

The property sits on land of about 32,000 sq ft and has a strata area of about 58,000 sq ft. Its net lettable area is about 23,000 sq ft, but Jones Lang LaSalle, which is marketing the property, said there is potential to increase this to around 36,000 sq ft through reconfiguration of void areas and use of courtyard space.

 

Currently the property is fully leased to the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. The lease runs out in 2015.

 

"Subject to approval from relevant authorities, there is potential for alternative uses including a flagship office building, specialist retail, hospitality or F&B usage," JLL said in its release yesterday.

 

Anthony Barr, JLL's national director (investments), said: "This is a rare opportunity to acquire an asset for commercial use in a prime location in the Orchard Road precinct. House of Tan Yeok Nee is a unique asset that offers owner occupiers or investors the ability to leverage off the building's prominence and historical significance."

 

The tender for The House of Tan Yeok Nee will close on July 5.

 

ERC boss Andy Ong has been in the news over a dispute with Sakae Holdings, where he was formerly non-executive director. Earlier this month, Sakae dropped two legal actions against Mr Ong after it secured rights to jointly control a special bank account holding tens of millions of dollars in proceeds from the sale of Bugis Cube, among other things.

 

But Sakae said it will continue to pursue a defamation lawsuit against Mr Ong's public relations firm, Financial PR Pte Ltd, and another action against him for breach of his duties.

 

ERC Holdings through a special purpose vehicle also owns Big Hotel along Middle Road. The hotel began trading earlier this month and last Saturday, all 200 rooms which had been opened by then were fully taken, said Mr Ong.

 

The 16-storey hotel has 308 rooms with sizes ranging from 11 to 50 sq metres. The average room size is 15 sq metres.

 

"We're rushing to open the rest of the rooms by the end of next week," said Mr Ong.

 

The hotel is currently offering a promotional room rate starting from $128 per night. Graduates of ERC's diploma and degree courses in hospitality management are among the hotel's employees.

 

ERC Holdings is an education, property and hotel group. Mr Ong, its chairman, owns more than 70 per cent of ERC.

 

When asked if he was willing to sell Big Hotel, Mr Ong replied: "We have received a lot of enquiries. Let's see what happens." In terms of his pricing expectation, Mr Ong said this will be at least at the valuation. The freehold hotel was valued recently at $240 million, which works out to nearly $800,000 per room.

 

ERC converted Big Hotel from the former Prime Centre, which it bought in late 2010 from Hong Leong Group. It paid $103 million for the building and pumped in another $30 million retrofitting the 16-storey building.


Edited by Sdf4786k, 24 May 2018 - 10:39 AM.


#2

Posted 24 May 2018 - 10:45 AM

Jman888
  • Jman888
    Moderator
      Joined: 19 August 2002
      Posts: 52,592
     

i have fond memory of this property in late 70s when Salvation army use it as their HQ. I was there many time for their donation drives when i was in Pri sch. The property was in the original state compare to what it is now.


骑白马的不一定是王 ,可能是唐僧;带翅膀的也不一定是天使,有时候是鸟人。

#3

Posted 24 May 2018 - 11:39 AM

Galantspeedz
  • Premium member
    Galantspeedz
    2Fast2Furious
    The points of the user determines the rank. The higher the points, the higher the rank.
    Author Image
    The bar represents the rank and points of the user. The longer the bar, the higher the rank and points.
     
    Points:
    Points are accumulated from other users who Praise or Disliked this users' posts.
    48,196
      Joined: 16 January 2006
      Posts: 41,634
     

Currently the property is fully leased to the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. The lease runs out in 2015.???


MCF PS3 Gang
MCF Hamsup Tiko Ranger

#4

Posted 24 May 2018 - 08:26 PM

Sdf4786k
  • THREAD STARTER
  • Premium member
    Sdf4786k
    Turbocharged
    The points of the user determines the rank. The higher the points, the higher the rank.
    Author Image
    The bar represents the rank and points of the user. The longer the bar, the higher the rank and points.
     
    Points:
    Points are accumulated from other users who Praise or Disliked this users' posts.
    8,500
      Joined: 26 December 2007
      Posts: 3,777
     
This was the previous episode.
Sit for few months 30 mil
https://www.business...k-on-the-market

This link is the latest

So sit for 3 years apprecite 10 mil

Edited by Sdf4786k, 24 May 2018 - 08:27 PM.


#5

Posted 12 July 2018 - 09:19 PM

Sdf4786k
  • THREAD STARTER
  • Premium member
    Sdf4786k
    Turbocharged
    The points of the user determines the rank. The higher the points, the higher the rank.
    Author Image
    The bar represents the rank and points of the user. The longer the bar, the higher the rank and points.
     
    Points:
    Points are accumulated from other users who Praise or Disliked this users' posts.
    8,500
      Joined: 26 December 2007
      Posts: 3,777
     

this article seems rather interesting. Wonder how much longer this would continue

 

https://www.supremec...rs-2018-sgca-33

 

Background

1          The present matters arose out of the decisions of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in two consolidated actions, Suits Nos 1098 and 122 of 2013 (“Suit 1098” and “Suit 122” respectively; and collectively, “the two Suits”). In Suit 1098, Sakae Holdings Ltd (“Sakae”) sought relief under s 216 of the Companies Act against Ong Siew Kwee (“Andy Ong”), Ong Han Boon and Ho Yew Kong (“Ho”), as well as various companies owned and controlled by Andy Ong (“the ERC Group”), alleging that they had acted in a manner oppressive to its interests as a minority shareholder in a joint venture company (“the Company”) by engaging in seven transactions that had (among other things) caused a substantial amount of money to be diverted from the Company to companies in the ERC Group. In Suit 122, Sakae sued Andy Ong for, among other things, breach of the fiduciary duties that he owed as a director of Sakae; this suit concerned only one of the seven impugned transactions (“Transaction 6”). Nine of the defendants commenced third party proceedings in the two Suits against Douglas Foo Peow Yong (“Foo”), the chairman of Sakae’s board, seeking indemnification or contribution in respect of any liability that they might incur arising from Sakae’s claims.

The material facts

2          Sakae, the Company and Gryphon Real Estate Investment Corporation Pte Ltd (“GREIC”), whose shareholders at the material time included Andy Ong, Ong Han Boon and Ho, entered into a joint venture agreement (“JVA”) in September 2010, under which the Company was intended to be the vehicle through which the parties would invest in units at Bugis Cube, redevelop those units and sell them at a profit. Sakae was the minority shareholder in the Company, while GREIC was the majority shareholder.

3          Sakae and Foo left the management of the Company to Andy Ong and Gryphon Capital Management Pte Ltd, a company controlled by Andy Ong which was established to manage the Company’s real estate investment. Over the years, Andy Ong masterminded the diversion of the Company’s assets to companies in the ERC Group by way of seven transactions. Foo uncovered these wrongful transactions in October 2012, leading Sakae to commence the two Suits.

4          In the judgment issued by the Judge dealing with Sakae’s claims in the two Suits (“the Main Judgment”), the Judge allowed most of Sakae’s claims, finding that six of the seven impugned transactions were oppressive to Sakae and that Andy Ong had breached the fiduciary duties which he owed as a director of Sakae. The Judge also ordered the Company to be wound up. In a separate judgment dealing with the third party claims against Foo (“the Third Party Judgment”), the Judge dismissed these claims and ordered indemnity costs against Andy Ong, Ong Han Boon and Ho.

5          In respect of the Main Judgment, Ho brought the appeal in Civil Appeal No 86 of 2017 (“CA 86”), while Andy Ong, Ong Han Boon and five other defendants in Suit 1098 brought the appeal in Civil Appeal No 87 of 2017 (“CA 87”) (collectively, “the Main Appeals”). In respect of the Third Party Judgment, Andy Ong and Ong Han Boon brought the appeal in Civil Appeal No 103 of 2017 (“CA 103”), while Ho brought the appeal in Civil Appeal No 104 of 2017 (“CA 104”) (collectively, “the Third Party Appeals”). Andy Ong also filed Court of Appeal Originating Summons No 13 of 2017 (“OS 13”), seeking a retroactive extension of time to file an appeal against the findings made by the Judge in both judgments in respect of Suit 122, having filed notices of appeal only against the Judge’s findings in respect of Suit 1098.


http://www.singapore...h.oKiyyxBJ.dpbs

 

Sakae case: Who's blowing the whistle on corporate Singapore?
Source
Business Times
Date
04 Jul 2018
Author
Michelle Quah

Food chain Sakae Sushi may be viewed as having scored a recent victory in its long-running legal battle with a former director, but we shouldn't be so quick as to blow the full-time whistle just yet.

While Singapore's apex court did last week rule in Sakae's favour in its claims against former director Andy Ong, the court's findings of "systemic abuse" and "misappropriation of funds (and) assets" by Mr Ong may also have put the entire matter well into extra time, by begging another question: where have Singapore's corporate and market regulators been on this issue?

First, a necessary recap of this long-running case. Mainboard-listed Sakae Holdings (Sakae), which runs the Sakae Sushi chain, had in September 2010 invested in a 24.69 per cent stake in a joint venture company, Griffin Real Estate Investment Holdings Pte Ltd (GREIH).

Gryphon Real Estate Investment Corporation Pte Ltd (GREIC), of which Mr Ong was a director and owned shares in, held the remaining 75.31 per cent. Mr Ong was also an independent director of Sakae from 2003 to 2013.

Mr Ong had, in 2009, proposed to Sakae founder and chief Douglas Foo that they come together to acquire more than 90 per cent of the units in the shopping mall Bugis Cube, which they could then redevelop and sell at a profit.

GREIH was to be the vehicle through which this would happen.

In early 2013, Sakae was informed by an international firm of accountants appointed by Mr Foo that "irregular" financial transactions had been undertaken in GREIH; Mr Foo had appointed the accountants to inspect GREIH's accounting records and financial affairs after he had noticed and become concerned about certain transactions.

He had, upon receiving the accountants' report, immediately notified Sakae's audit committee and external auditors of the findings.

Sakae's board of directors, through its lawyers, notified Singapore's white-collar-crime police, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), and reported the matter to Singapore's Minister for Finance as required to by the Companies Act.

Sakae subsequently commenced legal action against Mr Ong and his company ERC Holdings Pte Ltd to "secure and preserve (Sakae's) interests in GREIH".

Singapore's High Court in 2017 ruled, among other things, that Mr Ong "was apparently able to and did divert (GREIH's) assets to companies in the ERC Group" through seven transactions, which included:

 

****

  • The wrongful diversion of S$16 million from GREIH to companies in the ERC Group, as part of a "sham" lease agreement "concocted in order to divert funds" from GREIH;
    • The unauthorised extension of two loans totalling S$20 million from GREIH to ERC Unicampus (a company part of the ERC Group); and
    • GREIH's unauthorised payment of S$8 million to Mr Ong, as part of a supposed project manager agreement, which the court also termed a "sham".
  •  

The High Court determined that these acts were "oppressive" to Sakae as a minority owner of GREIH and that Mr Ong had breached his fiduciary duties which he owed as a director of Sakae.

Mr Ong appealed the High Court's decision. In its judgment last week, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the High Court's findings. A key portion of its ruling also has a direct bearing on the conduct and regulation of corporate Singapore.

"In our view," the judgment said, "the facts of the present case, taken as a whole, present a picture of systemic abuse by Andy Ong, the key figure behind all the impugned transactions".

It added that the abuse "benefitted one group of shareholders (namely, GREIC and, subsequently, ERC Holdings as well, both of which were controlled by Andy Ong at the material time), at the expense of the other (namely, Sakae)".

"It is indisputable that these transactions taken together, coupled with the systemic nature of Andy Ong's abuse, occasioned serious commercial unfairness to Sakae," it said.

 

 

'Systemic abuse'???????

Such findings of "systemic abuse" beg the question of why Singapore's regulators and authorities have thus far remained silent the entire time this case has been playing out publicly.

Sakae, in a filing to the Singapore Exchange in January 2013, said it had already reported the allegedly fraudulent transactions to the CAD, which means the matter had been brought to the attention of the authorities.

One would have thought that, in a case such as this, where unauthorised actions were made again and again to defraud another party, a probe would have been the very least action undertaken by the authorities; yet, there has been no announcement to this effect.

While it is understandable that the relevant authorities and corporate and market regulators would prefer to keep the progress of their investigations or deliberations confidential until they are concluded or a decision has been reached, it has to be said that the marked silence from these quarters - in the past five years since this case was reported - does little for market confidence.

One could argue that the authorities could be choosing to wait for the private civil suit to be settled either between the parties or by the courts before announcing any action on their part, but the counter to that is that such actions have not stopped Singapore's regulators before.

Of course, it could also be said that there is time yet and that it remains to be seen if any word or action will be uttered/taken by the relevant authorities on this matter - and one hopes there will be.

The Court of Appeal's judgment, which settled a private lawsuit, not a prosecutorial action brought about by the authorities, cannot be the final word on this issue; the lack of involvement by the authorities would give the unfortunate impression that companies, directors, investors and other stakeholders within the eco-system would need to tap on their own resources to seek redress for wrongs done to them.

The authorities ought to make themselves heard on what they will and will not stand for. One hopes that, by the time the final whistle is blown, the needed penalties have been doled out to keep the players on the field in check.

 


Edited by Sdf4786k, 12 July 2018 - 09:20 PM.

Ash2017 praised this


  • 1
Back to Property Buzz  ·  Non-Car Related Top Reply to this topic



Quick Reply



Tags: erc, andy ong, house, back and 1 more...

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users