Feud over mogul’s fortune takes new twist after secret talks draw a blank
Neil Gough 31 January 2011
Stanley Ho Hung-sun has withdrawn his lawsuit - three days after it was filed - against family members accused of “improperly and/or illegally” seizing control of his empire.
“Dr Stanley Ho has informed the defendants that he does not see any point in continuing the legal action in the High Court,” public relations firm Brunswick Group said in a statement on Sunday night.
The statement was issued on behalf of Ho’s third wife and his five children via his second wife - all of whom had been named as defendants in the suit.
The “notice of discontinuance” was filed to the High Court on Saturday by Ho, who was acting on his own behalf without other legal representation. The four-page document carried the signature of Stanley Ho - who appears to have dated it January 27.
Lawyer Gordon Oldham, of Oldham, Li and Nie, acting on behalf of the 89-year-old casino magnate, had initiated the suit on January 26.
Oldham could not be reached to comment on the latest developments. The suit accused Ho’s second wife, Lucina Laam King-ying, their five children (Pansy, Daisy, Maisy, Lawrence and Josie), his third wife Ina Chan Un-chan, and his long-time banker of “improperly and/or illegally” seizing 99.98 per cent control of Lanceford, the holding firm that controls the bulk of Ho’s massive fortune.
Lanceford owns 31.6 per cent of Sociedade de Turismo e Diversoes de Macau (STDM), a 50-year-old private Macau holding company, whose investments span several continents. Among STDM’s key holdings is a 56 per cent interest in Macau casino operator SJM Holdings - a stake worth around HK$40 billion based on SJM’s share price.
Ho’s legal claim over Lanceford was filed hours after he appeared on television last Wednesday, saying he would not be suing family members and calling for an end to the familial infighting.
The Cantonese-language video footage from TVB showed Ho in a wheelchair. He read in laboured breaths from a script on a large cue card inside the home of Chan who - with daughters Pansy, Daisy and Maisy - stood by and watched.
Oldham said later that day after filing the initial lawsuit - which had been signed by Stanley Ho - that the tycoon had been pressured into doing the broadcast.
Another press statement from Ho, carrying his signature, was issued early on Monday morning by Brunswick.
It quoted Ho as saying that the transactions that lead him to lose control of his Lanceford and STDM stake “have always been handled according to my requests without any oversight from me.
There have never been any acts of ‘hijacking’, ‘robbery’, ‘fraudulent misappropriation’, or ‘breach of integrity’ throughout this incident,” the statement, dated January 28, said.
“I took unnecessary legal action without a full understanding of the situation or thorough communication, and I have now withdrawn all legal action,” the statement quoted Ho as saying.
Ho’s signature was affixed to sharply contradictory family letters that emerged in the press last week. In the first, dated January 5, Ho said he wished to divide his empire equally among his four families.
In the second, dated January 7, he repeatedly affirmed daughter Daisy’s assertions that his intention all along was to hand the reins to his second and third wives and their children.
The latest twist in the legal case came against the backdrop of a series of behind-the-scenes negotiations between the divided factions of Ho’s four families, three surviving wives and 16 surviving children.
A secret meeting in Macau last Thursday brought together Ho’s fourth wife, Angela Leong On-kei; daughter [via his second wife] Pansy Ho Chiu-king; and daughter [via his first wife] Angela Ho Chiu-yin.
This meeting came a day after Ho filed his initial lawsuit. Oldham said of the Macau meeting: “An agreement in principle was arrived at ... whereby the wishes of Dr Ho would be carried out by the re-distribution of the Lanceford interests equally amongst the four families.
“Pansy indicated that she was ready, able and willing to do so ... but she would have to consult with her brother and sisters and mother and also convey to [Ho’s third wife] Ina [Chan] what had been agreed and seek her agreement.”
Pansy Ho issued a statement early on Monday morning confirming the Macau meeting took place, but denying any agreement had been reached as a result.
The meeting “gave a chance for the respective parties to express their views, but the discussion did not lead to any conclusion nor consensus”, Pansy Ho said in the statement, also issued by Brunswick.
“The assertion that I had committed in agreeing to a concept put forward in splitting the shareholding of Lanceford equally is therefore untrue,” it said.
2 comments:
Stanley Ho drops legal action against family
Feud over mogul’s fortune takes new twist after secret talks draw a blank
Neil Gough
31 January 2011
Stanley Ho Hung-sun has withdrawn his lawsuit - three days after it was filed - against family members accused of “improperly and/or illegally” seizing control of his empire.
“Dr Stanley Ho has informed the defendants that he does not see any point in continuing the legal action in the High Court,” public relations firm Brunswick Group said in a statement on Sunday night.
The statement was issued on behalf of Ho’s third wife and his five children via his second wife - all of whom had been named as defendants in the suit.
The “notice of discontinuance” was filed to the High Court on Saturday by Ho, who was acting on his own behalf without other legal representation. The four-page document carried the signature of Stanley Ho - who appears to have dated it January 27.
Lawyer Gordon Oldham, of Oldham, Li and Nie, acting on behalf of the 89-year-old casino magnate, had initiated the suit on January 26.
Oldham could not be reached to comment on the latest developments. The suit accused Ho’s second wife, Lucina Laam King-ying, their five children (Pansy, Daisy, Maisy, Lawrence and Josie), his third wife Ina Chan Un-chan, and his long-time banker of “improperly and/or illegally” seizing 99.98 per cent control of Lanceford, the holding firm that controls the bulk of Ho’s massive fortune.
Lanceford owns 31.6 per cent of Sociedade de Turismo e Diversoes de Macau (STDM), a 50-year-old private Macau holding company, whose investments span several continents. Among STDM’s key holdings is a 56 per cent interest in Macau casino operator SJM Holdings - a stake worth around HK$40 billion based on SJM’s share price.
Ho’s legal claim over Lanceford was filed hours after he appeared on television last Wednesday, saying he would not be suing family members and calling for an end to the familial infighting.
The Cantonese-language video footage from TVB showed Ho in a wheelchair. He read in laboured breaths from a script on a large cue card inside the home of Chan who - with daughters Pansy, Daisy and Maisy - stood by and watched.
Oldham said later that day after filing the initial lawsuit - which had been signed by Stanley Ho - that the tycoon had been pressured into doing the broadcast.
Another press statement from Ho, carrying his signature, was issued early on Monday morning by Brunswick.
It quoted Ho as saying that the transactions that lead him to lose control of his Lanceford and STDM stake “have always been handled according to my requests without any oversight from me.
There have never been any acts of ‘hijacking’, ‘robbery’, ‘fraudulent misappropriation’, or ‘breach of integrity’ throughout this incident,” the statement, dated January 28, said.
“I took unnecessary legal action without a full understanding of the situation or thorough communication, and I have now withdrawn all legal action,” the statement quoted Ho as saying.
Ho’s signature was affixed to sharply contradictory family letters that emerged in the press last week. In the first, dated January 5, Ho said he wished to divide his empire equally among his four families.
In the second, dated January 7, he repeatedly affirmed daughter Daisy’s assertions that his intention all along was to hand the reins to his second and third wives and their children.
The latest twist in the legal case came against the backdrop of a series of behind-the-scenes negotiations between the divided factions of Ho’s four families, three surviving wives and 16 surviving children.
A secret meeting in Macau last Thursday brought together Ho’s fourth wife, Angela Leong On-kei; daughter [via his second wife] Pansy Ho Chiu-king; and daughter [via his first wife] Angela Ho Chiu-yin.
This meeting came a day after Ho filed his initial lawsuit. Oldham said of the Macau meeting: “An agreement in principle was arrived at ... whereby the wishes of Dr Ho would be carried out by the re-distribution of the Lanceford interests equally amongst the four families.
“Pansy indicated that she was ready, able and willing to do so ... but she would have to consult with her brother and sisters and mother and also convey to [Ho’s third wife] Ina [Chan] what had been agreed and seek her agreement.”
Pansy Ho issued a statement early on Monday morning confirming the Macau meeting took place, but denying any agreement had been reached as a result.
The meeting “gave a chance for the respective parties to express their views, but the discussion did not lead to any conclusion nor consensus”, Pansy Ho said in the statement, also issued by Brunswick.
“The assertion that I had committed in agreeing to a concept put forward in splitting the shareholding of Lanceford equally is therefore untrue,” it said.
Post a Comment