- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Mr Teo's first family is with Madam Tian Ah Poon. They split in 2002 after 51 years of marriage in a high-profile divorce case. Madam Tian said at the time that she could not keep living with a 'serial womaniser' who kept two mistresses with whom he had nine children.
Mr Teo insisted then that he still loved her and their four grown-up children.
He also has children with Madam Tan Ah Soi and Madam Loh Kwai Lin.
Mr Teo's statement of claim said he wanted to transfer his Hiap Hoe Holdings stock to the family he had with Madam Loh after the 2002 divorce but the families of Madam Tian and Madam Tan disagreed.
In 2010, Mr Teo brought Mr Teo Ho San, the eldest son he had with Madam Loh, into the Hiap Hoe group. But last July, the subsidiary employing him stopped paying his salary, throwing his employment status into question.
But two sons from the patriarch's first marriage, Mr Teo Ho Beng and Mr Roland Teo Ho Kang, said Mr Teo Ho San was not doing his job properly.
It seems that this incident was one large factor that prompted the patriarch's court action, which specifically names Hiap Hoe Holdings itself and the two sons - Mr Teo Ho Beng and Mr Roland Teo - as defendants.
Mr Teo's statement of claim states that he 'realised that (Hiap Hoe Holdings) could no longer be run as a family company'. It adds that '(his) third family (with Madam Loh) has been excluded from participation from Hiap Hoe Holdings'.
But his sons, Mr Teo Ho Beng and Mr Roland Teo, represented by Stamford Law Corp, said the assertion of mutual trust and confidence among all of their father's lovers and children is 'inherently absurd'.
The second family with Madam Tan was 'endured and tolerated' by the first family of Madam Tian. Likewise, both families did not accept the existence of the third family, according to the sons' defence.
The two sons also said that since 2009, their father 'formed a liaison' with Ms Han Yumei, a Chinese national, causing further family division.
They note as well that as at the end of last year, their father owed Hiap Hoe Holdings about $38 million, which is due for repayment by the end of 2016. Their father's statement had said he had taken the loans to support his families.
The sons also said the row had been precipitated by the refusal of Mr Teo Ho Beng to agree to his father's request in December 2010 for a further $5 million unsecured loan from the Hiap Hoe group.
Mr Teo Ho Beng understood the money was for the benefit of Ms Han.
There was also disagreement on a proposed sale of the father's stake in Hiap Hoe Holdings to the two sons last year, which fell through.
Mr Teo insisted then that he still loved her and their four grown-up children.
He also has children with Madam Tan Ah Soi and Madam Loh Kwai Lin.
Mr Teo's statement of claim said he wanted to transfer his Hiap Hoe Holdings stock to the family he had with Madam Loh after the 2002 divorce but the families of Madam Tian and Madam Tan disagreed.
In 2010, Mr Teo brought Mr Teo Ho San, the eldest son he had with Madam Loh, into the Hiap Hoe group. But last July, the subsidiary employing him stopped paying his salary, throwing his employment status into question.
But two sons from the patriarch's first marriage, Mr Teo Ho Beng and Mr Roland Teo Ho Kang, said Mr Teo Ho San was not doing his job properly.
It seems that this incident was one large factor that prompted the patriarch's court action, which specifically names Hiap Hoe Holdings itself and the two sons - Mr Teo Ho Beng and Mr Roland Teo - as defendants.
Mr Teo's statement of claim states that he 'realised that (Hiap Hoe Holdings) could no longer be run as a family company'. It adds that '(his) third family (with Madam Loh) has been excluded from participation from Hiap Hoe Holdings'.
But his sons, Mr Teo Ho Beng and Mr Roland Teo, represented by Stamford Law Corp, said the assertion of mutual trust and confidence among all of their father's lovers and children is 'inherently absurd'.
The second family with Madam Tan was 'endured and tolerated' by the first family of Madam Tian. Likewise, both families did not accept the existence of the third family, according to the sons' defence.
The two sons also said that since 2009, their father 'formed a liaison' with Ms Han Yumei, a Chinese national, causing further family division.
They note as well that as at the end of last year, their father owed Hiap Hoe Holdings about $38 million, which is due for repayment by the end of 2016. Their father's statement had said he had taken the loans to support his families.
The sons also said the row had been precipitated by the refusal of Mr Teo Ho Beng to agree to his father's request in December 2010 for a further $5 million unsecured loan from the Hiap Hoe group.
Mr Teo Ho Beng understood the money was for the benefit of Ms Han.
There was also disagreement on a proposed sale of the father's stake in Hiap Hoe Holdings to the two sons last year, which fell through.
