- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 464
- Points
- 43
Jan 28, 2011
Stanley Ho suing family members again
Tycoon's relatives had forced him to say feud is resolved, his lawyer says
HONG KONG: Just a day after declaring an end to a broiling family feud over his vast fortune, casino tycoon Stanley Ho yesterday made a major U-turn, filing a suit against several family members to regain control of his casino company.
Mr Ho's lawyer said the billionaire had been coerced by his relatives into making a bizarre TV appearance on Wednesday during which he said the feud had been 'resolved', a comment that added yet another twist to the gripping saga.
'I asked him for an explanation about his earlier appearance on TV,' Mr Gordon Oldham told Hong Kong broadcaster Cable News.
'He said that he felt very pressurised by his family to read out that statement. He wasn't at all happy in doing so.'
The suit also seems to suggest that Mr Ho had not fired his lawyer, as earlier reports appeared to show. Mr Oldham had himself refuted them and said he is still representing the tycoon.
Yesterday, the lawyer said he had filed a court claim on Mr Ho's behalf against his third wife Ina Chan, and against five of his children from his second wife Lucina Laam.
The application seeks to prevent them from completing a share transfer that gives them control over Mr Ho's flagship casino operator, SJM Holdings.
The writ, which was filed in the High Court and signed by Mr Ho, sought a reversal of the transaction and a declaration that the 'shares were improperly and unlawfully allotted' while seeking an injunction to 'restrain each of them' from making further share allotments or disposals.
'He is trying to get his wealth back,' said Mr Oldham.
The latest move in the zig-zagging tussle for the 89-year-old's wealth - estimated at US$3 billion (S$3.8 billion) - suggests an intensification in the scramble between factions of Mr Ho's family, which includes four wives and at least 17 children.
The dispute had started after SJM announced that most of Mr Ho's stake in its parent company STDM had been transferred to Madam Chan and Madam Laam's children, effectively leaving out his first and fourth wives and their families.
But this was done 'without Ho's consent and knowledge', according to a Jan 5 letter from Mr Ho to Ms Daisy Ho, one of his daughters from his second wife.
In that letter, the tycoon said he had intended for his main assets to be distributed equally among each of his four families.
On Tuesday, Mr Oldham quoted Mr Ho as accusing his relatives of 'robbing' him, and said the tycoon would bring the issue to court. A day later, the billionaire appeared to backtrack on these claims - and, in a television interview, said he would not sue and would resolve the matter privately. But that changed again yesterday, when he filed the suit.
Much of the controversy has arisen as a result of apparent fissures in Mr Ho's complicated family tree. The tycoon refers to the mothers of his many offspring as his wives. But his lawyer has maintained that Mr Ho was legally married only to the first, Clementina, who died in 2004, and that the rest were mistresses.
The South China Morning Post reported that Mr Ho also married his second wife, Madam Laam, before Hong Kong's polygamy laws changed in the early 1970s.
Analysts say the tussle over the tycoon's fortune may have been triggered by a move to pave the way for an orderly succession.
Last month, his powerful fourth wife Angela Leong was given a stake in SJM, which pushed her shareholding up to 7.63 per cent, making her the second-largest single shareholder.
Some analysts say the gift of shares to Madam Leong may have upset his second and third wives, leading to the latest disputed asset transfer.
Adding spice was a plea from Ms Angela Ho, a daughter of Mr Ho's late first wife, who said she could not believe her father would leave nothing to her mother's family.
'Her connections in Portugal and standing in Macau society were a big factor for my father winning the gambling monopoly in 1961,' she was quoted as saying in a statement by The South China Morning Post.
'My father has always prided himself on being a fair, just and honest person, and I cannot believe that my father would leave my mother's family with nothing at all,' she said.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, REUTERS, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Stanley Ho suing family members again
Tycoon's relatives had forced him to say feud is resolved, his lawyer says
HONG KONG: Just a day after declaring an end to a broiling family feud over his vast fortune, casino tycoon Stanley Ho yesterday made a major U-turn, filing a suit against several family members to regain control of his casino company.
Mr Ho's lawyer said the billionaire had been coerced by his relatives into making a bizarre TV appearance on Wednesday during which he said the feud had been 'resolved', a comment that added yet another twist to the gripping saga.
'I asked him for an explanation about his earlier appearance on TV,' Mr Gordon Oldham told Hong Kong broadcaster Cable News.
'He said that he felt very pressurised by his family to read out that statement. He wasn't at all happy in doing so.'
The suit also seems to suggest that Mr Ho had not fired his lawyer, as earlier reports appeared to show. Mr Oldham had himself refuted them and said he is still representing the tycoon.
Yesterday, the lawyer said he had filed a court claim on Mr Ho's behalf against his third wife Ina Chan, and against five of his children from his second wife Lucina Laam.
The application seeks to prevent them from completing a share transfer that gives them control over Mr Ho's flagship casino operator, SJM Holdings.
The writ, which was filed in the High Court and signed by Mr Ho, sought a reversal of the transaction and a declaration that the 'shares were improperly and unlawfully allotted' while seeking an injunction to 'restrain each of them' from making further share allotments or disposals.
'He is trying to get his wealth back,' said Mr Oldham.
The latest move in the zig-zagging tussle for the 89-year-old's wealth - estimated at US$3 billion (S$3.8 billion) - suggests an intensification in the scramble between factions of Mr Ho's family, which includes four wives and at least 17 children.
The dispute had started after SJM announced that most of Mr Ho's stake in its parent company STDM had been transferred to Madam Chan and Madam Laam's children, effectively leaving out his first and fourth wives and their families.
But this was done 'without Ho's consent and knowledge', according to a Jan 5 letter from Mr Ho to Ms Daisy Ho, one of his daughters from his second wife.
In that letter, the tycoon said he had intended for his main assets to be distributed equally among each of his four families.
On Tuesday, Mr Oldham quoted Mr Ho as accusing his relatives of 'robbing' him, and said the tycoon would bring the issue to court. A day later, the billionaire appeared to backtrack on these claims - and, in a television interview, said he would not sue and would resolve the matter privately. But that changed again yesterday, when he filed the suit.
Much of the controversy has arisen as a result of apparent fissures in Mr Ho's complicated family tree. The tycoon refers to the mothers of his many offspring as his wives. But his lawyer has maintained that Mr Ho was legally married only to the first, Clementina, who died in 2004, and that the rest were mistresses.
The South China Morning Post reported that Mr Ho also married his second wife, Madam Laam, before Hong Kong's polygamy laws changed in the early 1970s.
Analysts say the tussle over the tycoon's fortune may have been triggered by a move to pave the way for an orderly succession.
Last month, his powerful fourth wife Angela Leong was given a stake in SJM, which pushed her shareholding up to 7.63 per cent, making her the second-largest single shareholder.
Some analysts say the gift of shares to Madam Leong may have upset his second and third wives, leading to the latest disputed asset transfer.
Adding spice was a plea from Ms Angela Ho, a daughter of Mr Ho's late first wife, who said she could not believe her father would leave nothing to her mother's family.
'Her connections in Portugal and standing in Macau society were a big factor for my father winning the gambling monopoly in 1961,' she was quoted as saying in a statement by The South China Morning Post.
'My father has always prided himself on being a fair, just and honest person, and I cannot believe that my father would leave my mother's family with nothing at all,' she said.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, REUTERS, ASSOCIATED PRESS
