Skip to main content

Lawyer Gordon Oldham, right, shows his video of the conversation with Hong Kong casino tycoon Stanley Ho

Kin Cheung/AP

Macau gaming magnate Stanley Ho is set to take fresh legal action against family members, his lawyer said on Tuesday, in the latest U-turn in a dynastic tussle for control over one of Asia's largest fortunes.

Mr. Ho, the 89-year-old chairman of Macau's biggest casino operator, SJM Holdings , has been embroiled in a battle for control of his assets with three of his four wives and 17 children, whose controversial asset transfer has effectively whittled down the bulk of Mr. Ho's shareholdings in SJM to nothing.

For decades, Mr. Ho oversaw the biggest gambling operation in Macau, a former sleepy Portuguese colony down the Chinese coast from Hong Kong. His firm SJM still controls more than 30 per cent of the gaming market in the glitzy neon hub.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Ho, who appealed for family unity in videotaped comments posted on YouTube last month before the Lunar New Year holidays, said that he was dropping the lawsuit against his family to give them a chance to return his assets amicably.

But following a lull in proceedings over the holidays, Mr. Ho's lawyer said he would once again resume legal action against members of his second and third family, which include daughters Pansy and Daisy Ho, as they have failed to reach any agreement to reverse the asset transfer.

"We have not received any proposal from Daisy and Pansy Ho," Mr. Ho's lawyer, Gordon Oldham, told Reuters.

Mr. Oldham said a new court case would be filed on Wednesday against Mr. Ho's family to recover his assets.

Pansy Ho, considered one of Asia's leading businesswomen, also runs a major casino in Macau with U.S.-based MGM Mirage . She was accused by Mr. Ho of being a key player in the asset transfer.

SJM's share prices have tumbled about 8 per cent since the saga unfolded, wiping nearly $1-billion (U.S.) off its market capitalization.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter