Big Hotel sold for 203 mil

[Sdf4786k]

ERC and sakei Sushi suing each other being going on for ages.

 

Now that Big Hotel, which was own by ERC is now sold, is the chapter now closed.?

 

 

[Sdf4786k]

ok.. seems like share holders are not please with the way the money flows from seller to investors.

 

 

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/singapore/big-hotel-sold-to-hong/2272730.html

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/hk-real-estate-equity-group-to-buy-big-hotel-for-203m

 

Court order puts $100m from sale proceeds in escrow; next hearing to be on Thursday

Grace Leong

[email protected]

Two investors in a legal spat with businessman Andy Ong have won a court order to place nearly half of the $203 million sale proceeds of Singapore's Big Hotel in trust or "escrow".

The order bars the hotel's holding company, ERC Unicampus, and its directors including Mr Ong, from disposing of the $100 million in escrow. It is pending the outcome of a court hearing on Thursday to decide if the money should stay in escrow until the shareholders agree on how to divvy up the funds.

But the order allows for the payment of conveyancing costs and taxes related to the sale. These include bank loans of more than $80 million and trade bills.

 

[Jman888]

internal dispute, all can be sorted out since all documents in black and white.

 

what surprised me was Big only has one hotel can fech such a price.

[Latio2005A]

internal dispute, all can be sorted out since all documents in black and white.

 

what surprised me was Big only has one hotel can fech such a price.

 

The former Prime Centre was sold to ERC at S$100 million.

Now papers said there was about S$80 million in expenses including interests, so ERC may have made net S$23 million. Over a five-year investment period.

Good or not ar?

[Sdf4786k]

The former Prime Centre was sold to ERC at S$100 million.

Now papers said there was about S$80 million in expenses including interests, so ERC may have made net S$23 million. Over a five-year investment period.

Good or not ar?

 

the devil is in the details.

 

There are some juicy court hearing gossip.

[Sdf4786k]

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/gryphon-sues-sakae-over-proceeds-from-property-sale

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/sakae-wins-court-action-against-ex-director-and-associates

 

looks like it has come to an end. But how will the dividends to provided seems rather vague.

 

but looking at the number, the invested yield seems too good to be true. 

 

***************************************

Three men ordered to pay $35m to real estate firm in which Sakae has minority stake

Sakae Holdings, the owner of the Sakae Sushi chain, has won a major legal victory against former director Andy Ong and his two associates.

High Court Justice Judith Prakash ordered Mr Ong and associates Ong Han Boon and Ho Yew Kong to pay about $35 million to Griffin Real Estate Investment Holdings, in which Sakae is a minority shareholder.

Mr Ong was also ordered to pay $2.64 million to Sakae.

Yesterday's judgment follows a seven-week trial last year centred on Sakae's accusations that Mr Ong breached his fiduciary duties while a Sakae director.

Sakae also brought a second suit, this one against various people who allegedly conducted the affairs of Griffin Real Estate "in a manner that is oppressive and prejudicial" to the interests of Sakae.

Sakae founder Douglas Foo and Mr Ong had been fast friends since their national service days and had become successful businessmen by 2010.

But their friendship ended in tatters after Mr Ong invited Mr Foo to participate in a property development investment with him.

Sakae eventually sued Mr Ong and his companies, alleging oppression, breach of fiduciary duty and exploitation.

Mr Andy Ong, Mr Ong Han Boon and Mr Ho were accused of treating Griffin Real Estate's funds as their personal money and diverting them for the benefit of the ERC group.

Mr Andy Ong is the founder and chief executive of ERC Holdings, which is the holding company of ERC group.

ERC Holdings, in turn, is a shareholder of Gryphon Capital Management, which manages Griffin Real Estate property investments, including Bugis Cube, a commercial property at 470, North Bridge Road.

Sakae, which is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and Mr Jaikanth Shankar of Drew & Napier, alleged that Griffin Real Estate funds were used by ERC group to finance the purchase of the House of Tan Yeok Nee, a gazetted national monument in Penang Road, and Big Hotel in Middle Road.

Judge Prakash found Mr Andy Ong to be "in breach of his fiduciary duties to Sakae" and ordered that Griffin Real Estate be liquidated.

"Mr Ong also avoided taking the stand and avoided having to answer questions about (Griffin Real Estate's) financial position," the judge wrote in the 171-page judgment released yesterday.

"(Griffin Real Estate) has $96 million in its bank account but it is not clear that those funds represent the total value of the company. From the evidence given at trial, it is apparent that the company's finances have been manipulated for the benefit of other parties."

Justice Prakash noted that the defendants acted in "clear disregard of Sakae's interests when they siphoned out $16 million from (Griffin) under the guise of prematurely terminating" a lease agreement, which she found to be a "sham document".

"The $16 million was ultimately used to benefit the ERC group of companies and it is not disputed that Mr Ong had a sizeable interest in the companies which benefited from the transactions," she wrote.

In another instance, a $10 million loan from UOB earmarked for Griffin's working capital needs was used, at Mr Andy Ong and Mr Ong Han Boon's directions, to fund an ERC firm's purchase of Big Hotel.

"It appears that an exercise in creative accounting had been effected seeking to depict cash inflows to (Griffin) in full satisfaction of the loan, but ultimately leaving the company $7.9 million out of pocket," the judge wrote.

When contacted yesterday, Mr Foo said he is "relieved that justice is served".

Mr Andy Ong is said to be considering an appeal.

 

- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/99885-sakae-wins-court-action-against-ex-director-and-associates.html#sthash.q2cSXHA5.dpuf

 

 

https://www.tracygoh.sg/commercial-news/sakae-holdings-singapore-won-lawsuit/

 

good movie script material ,,,

 

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/attachments/100008/[2017]%20SGHC%2073.pdf

 

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/99885-sakae-wins-court-action-against-ex-director-and-associates.html#sthash.q2cSXHA5.dpbs

 

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Sdf4786k

[Sdf4786k]

http://www.singaporelawwatch.com/slw/super-feed.html

 

On the other hand, she found that the harm done by Mr Andy Ong and Mr Ho to Griffin was deliberately inflicted. Judge Prakash noted that, in one instance, the defendants acted in "clear disregard of" Sakae's interests when they siphoned off $16 million from Griffin under the guise of prematurely terminating a lease agreement, which she found to be a "sham document".

Judge Prakash also dismissed Mr Ho's claims for liability against Mr Foo, noting that Mr Ho had a duty to act in the interests of Griffin, but did not alert Mr Foo to what was going on. "Instead, he connived with Mr Ong and did whatever the latter wanted him to do without applying an independent mind. He was not merely a sleeping director but was an active party to sham 

 

Base on the bold wordings, when does CPIB or CBT kick in for investigation ?

Or does the word Sham means something else?