Business
Lee Shau-Kee, Hong Kong Real Estate Tycoon, Dies at 97
Lee Shau-kee, a Hong Kong real estate tycoon who made his immense fortune building tens of thousands of apartments for middle-class descendants of refugees who had fled Communist mainland China, died on Monday. He was 97.
His death was announced by the company he founded, Henderson Land Development. It did not say where he died or cite a cause.
Well into his 70s, Mr. Lee became even wealthier through shrewd financial investments that prompted some to call him Hong Kong’s Warren Buffett. At his death, Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $29.2 billion, making him the 63rd wealthiest person in the world.
Mr. Lee founded Henderson Land Development in 1976. By the time he stepped down as its chairman and managing director in 2019 at age 91, the company had grown to 10,000 employees and spread beyond real estate development into hotels, department stores and natural gas distribution.
He started his career as a gold and currency dealer, reinvesting his profits in real estate. Most speculators and developers preferred higher-priced plots on the island of Hong Kong. But Mr. Lee was certain that the rising tide of hardworking, upwardly mobile refugees from the mainland and their descendants would send property prices soaring. He took a chance, buying up large chunks of cheap agricultural land in the New Territories bordering the mainland.
His business strategy, he said, was based on trends indicating that wages were rising far faster than property prices, putting apartments within reach of hundreds of thousands of buyers and renters. In the 1970s and ’80s, Henderson Land Development erected the new town of Sha Tin, which became home to more than a half-million people.
“Young couples were choosing to live in their own homes instead of with their parents as they had done traditionally,” Mr. Lee told his official biographer, Leung Fung-yee.
Mr. Lee himself lived in one of the nondescript residential towers that his company built throughout Hong Kong and liked to spend his leisure time golfing with fellow magnates.
As his real estate business grew, Mr. Lee staffed his management with relatives, including his children and nieces and nephews. At least 10 of them held senior positions; two sons, Peter and Martin, became joint chairmen in 2019.
Mr. Lee channeled most of his philanthropy through the Lee Shau-Kee Foundation, funding buildings and scholarships at universities in Hong Kong, China and other countries. The foundation also financed vocational training for farmers and rural doctors in mainland China.
Mr. Lee once considered making major investments abroad, he said, but decided in the end to stay on the island. “Elsewhere the taxes are too high,” he told Forbes in 1997, noting that in 1996, he collected $340 million in tax-free dividends, plowing most of this windfall back into his real estate ventures. “You couldn’t snowball your profits.”
Lee Shau-kee was born on Jan. 29, 1928, in Shunde, on the outskirts of Guangzhou, then known as Canton, in southern China, to Lee Gai-fu and Chan Luan-fung. His father, a well-to-do currency trader, sent him to Hong Kong in 1948 when Mao Zedong’s Communists were about to triumph over Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists in China’s civil war.
As a teenager, Mr. Lee became a gold trader, first with his father and then on his own. As an adult, he decided to move to Hong Kong and embark on real estate development. He co-founded Sun Hung Kai Properties with two other partners in 1963 and started Henderson Land Development on his own 13 years later.
Henderson became a publicly traded company in 1981, though a majority of its shares were owned by Lee family members.
Mr. Lee had occasional business fallouts with his relatives, most notably with his wife of 15 years, Lau Wai-kuen, whom he divorced in 1981. “I will not marry again because I’m afraid any woman would only see my money,” he told his biographer.
His survivors include his two sons, three daughters and his sister, Fung Lee Woon King, an executive director at Henderson Land Development.
Toward the end of the 20th century, economic and political trends undermined the Hong Kong real estate market that had propelled Mr. Lee into the ranks of the world’s richest people. With China embracing capitalist reforms, foreign investors rushed to set up factories and offices on the mainland, and Shanghai challenged Hong Kong as Asia’s pre-eminent financial capital. And with the end of British colonial rule in Hong Kong and its return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, the island-city lost some of its aura of a freewheeling business center. With fewer corporations setting up offices in Hong Kong, the local property market stagnated.
Mr. Lee’s critics predicted his empire’s decline, citing it as a cautionary tale about the perils facing a business that had outgrown its traditional, family-run organization.
“Lee Shau-kee is typical of the post-World War II generation of Chinese entrepreneurs in Asia,” the Far Eastern Economic Review said in a long profile of him in 2001. Despite building a profitable empire in the midst of turmoil, the magazine wrote, Mr. Lee “has had difficulties preparing it for a new generation and a new business environment.”
He proved such doomsayers wrong with profitable investments in financial stocks, derivatives and new ventures such as paper manufacturing. His touch was so sure that he tried to hide his investment plans from speculators trying to follow his every move.
At the same time, Mr. Lee was growing increasingly impatient with his heirs. In 1998, he told Hong Kong journalists that after a decade of tutelage in the family business, his oldest son, Peter, was not ready to succeed him. “He gets only a passing grade now,” Mr. Lee said.
At the time, investors and financial analysts were even less impressed by another son, Martin, who had to overcome a youthful passion for sports cars and nightlife.
But they regained his confidence over the years, and took control of the company after Mr. Lee stepped down.
For their part, Mr. Lee’s sons professed loyalty to their father and urged him to retain leadership of the family business as long as possible. “I will be the first one to ask him not to retire,” Peter Lee told The South China Morning Post in 2001.
The sentiment was in keeping with Mr. Lee’s own strong sense of filial piety. In 1996, he built a four-story mausoleum, topped with a tower embedded with semiprecious stones, on an acre in his family’s ancestral village of Daliang, in the southern Pearl River Delta. He buried his parents there.
Ash Wu contributed reporting.
Business
Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown
The state’s trial attorneys and Uber say they have reached a last-minute deal to scrap their dueling ballot measures and avert what was gearing up to be one of most expensive battles of the November election.
The deal, which comes a day after both measures qualified for the November ballot, has Uber agreeing to bulk up safety measures, while the trial attorneys will limit how much they can claim for lien-based medical treatment of victims who get in Uber or Lyft accidents, according to spokespeople for both sides of the campaign.
“Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that’s safe, fair, and accountable,” read a joint statement from Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful attorney trade group. “This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”
The agreement, finalized Thursday, means the ride-share giant will kill its ballot measure to cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases and limit medical damages to rates based on insurance. Uber has argued that the costs for medical treatment done on a lien, which allows doctors to get paid from a cut of the plaintiff’s payout, far exceed what it would cost if the victim had used their own insurance.
In return, the Consumer Attorneys of California will cancel its competing ballot measure that sought to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver. The measure followed an investigation by the New York Times into sexual assault by drivers.
Both sides had poured tens of millions into the campaigns, plastering billboards across Los Angeles.
Lawyers claimed the fight had turned existential with the measure threatening to decimate the profit margin of many personal injury cases and leave drivers with small or thorny cases unable to find an attorney willing to take their case.
Spokespeople say the deal is predicated on their agreement being codified into a bill within the next week. Otherwise, they said, each side will move forward with its ballot measure.
Business
Commentary: A porn firm that a judge called a ‘copyright troll’ now has Meta in its sights — and it could win
This porn company made millions by shaming the little guys who downloaded its films. But now it’s going after Meta for copyright infringement.
It isn’t often that a lawsuit can make me smile, much less laugh out loud. The latest exception is Strike 3 Holdings vs. Meta Platforms, which is currently unfolding in San Jose federal court.
Two things are amusing about the case. One is that Meta, the giant social media company, is accused of copyright infringement for allegedly downloading 2,400 of the plaintiff’s movies to train its AI bots. If Meta loses, that would be a serious (and in my opinion, deserved) blow against AI companies that have used copyrighted materials without permission.
The second part of the joke is the identity of the plaintiff. Strike 3 Holdings, you see, makes porn. Moreover, for years it has pursued a plainly unscrupulous business model in which it sues individuals for allegedly downloading its movies without permission, and shames them into settling for a few thousand dollars at a pop.
While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible…that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person—or any combination of such persons—was responsible for that activity.
— Meta points the finger at others for a porn scandal
Whether or not Strike 3 has a legitimate claim for copyright infringement, it doesn’t deserve your sympathy. The firm was flayed in 2018 by federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Washington, D.C., for engaging in what he labeled a “high-tech shakedown … smacking of extortion.” Lamberth called Strike 3 a “copyright troll” and threw out its lawsuit against an unidentified internet user for having treated his court “not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM.”
When I wrote about this scheme in 2023, I counted more than 12,440 lawsuits that the Los Angeles-based firm had filed in federal courts coast-to-coast. The latest count, according to a Lexis search a defense lawyer ran for me, is more than 21,000. The vast majority were settled and closed within a few months of their filing, an indication that they were never meant to go to trial.
Now Strike 3 appears to have hooked a big fish. In the first significant ruling in its lawsuit against Meta, the firm scored a surprise win: On June 11, federal Judge Eumi K. Lee of San Jose denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the case. Meta’s defense, she wrote, “strains credulity.”
More about that in a moment. First, a few words about the litigants. Meta needs no introduction: Formerly known as Facebook and based in Menlo Park, Calif., Meta recorded a profit of $60.5 billion last year on $201 billion in revenue.
Strike 3 portrays itself as an avatar of “Hollywood style and quality” in its adult films, which it distributes through its streaming websites such as Blacked, Tushy, Vixen and Wifey. It has described Greg Landry, its former owner and house auteur, as the porn industry’s “answer to Steven Spielberg.”
Neither Meta nor Strike 3 responded to my request for comment beyond the claims and defenses in court filings.
As I reported in 2023, Strike 3 has flooded federal courts with cookie-cutter lawsuits alleging that defendants infringed its copyrights by downloading its movies via BitTorrent, an online service on which unauthorized content can be accessed by almost anyone with an internet connection. Its targets generally have been individuals with plenty to lose from being publicly outed as porn viewers.
“Given the nature of the films at issue,” a federal judge in Connecticut observed last year, “defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they believe they have been misidentified.”
Strike 3’s letters to its target defendants have warned that the statutory penalty for willful copyright infringement is $150,000, but offer to make the case go quietly away for a few thousand bucks, which would be a fraction of the cost of hiring a defense lawyer, not to mention the downside of exposing oneself as a porn fiend.
J. Curtis Edmondson, a Portland, Ore., lawyer who won a case against Strike 3, estimated in 2023 that Strike 3 “pulls in about $15 million to $20 million a year from its lawsuits.” But financial data that could validate his estimate hasn’t surfaced in court records.
There’s nothing new about content owners’ aggressive pursuit of copyright infringers. The practice was pioneered by the Recording Industry Assn. of America, when the industry feared that unauthorized downloading of music through programs such as Napster threatened its very existence. From 2003 through 2008, the association sued some 35,000 alleged song pirates.
But it abandoned the strategy because its legal dragnet swept up sympathetic targets such as single mothers and teenage girls, creating a public relations disaster.
There followed the appearance of outright trolls such as Prenda Law Group, which posted porn films online as bait to attract downloaders, whom it then sued in what judges ultimately found to be sham lawsuits. Prenda principal John L. Steele even bragged publicly that Prenda had made nearly $15 million with its lawsuits. U.S. Judge Otis Wright II of Los Angeles put the kibosh to its practice by slapping the Prenda lawyers with stiff sanctions for contempt.
That brings us to Strike 3’s case against Meta, which it filed in July. Strike 3 hasn’t been accused of a Prenda-style fraud, since it does own the films at issue and its right to sue copyright infringers isn’t disputed. But its allegation that Meta downloaded its films to train its AI bots, rather than just for personal enjoyment, is a new wrinkle for an old issue.
Strike 3 says its lawsuit grew out of a separate case in which a witness testified that Meta had downloaded thousands of pirated books to train its LLaMA AI bots — that is, feeding the content into LLaMA for it to use to generate answers to user questions. (Numerous lawsuits have been filed against AI firms alleging similar infringement.)
Strike 3 says that case prompted it to look into whether Meta had downloaded any of its content. It says it discovered that 47 IP addresses owned by Meta — that is, digital identifiers of internet accounts — had downloaded its movies without permission.
In all, Strike 3 alleges, those Meta addresses downloaded at least 2,396 of its movies — almost its entire catalog — more than 6,000 times via BitTorrent. What’s more, Strike 3 says Meta then posted some of that content back onto BitTorrent to take advantage of BitTorrent’s “tit-for-tat” mechanism through which users can obtain faster download speeds by uploading content to the platform.
If Strike 3 were to prevail on all its claims for illicit downloading, it would be entitled to about $360 million in damages, observes Eric Fruits, an Oregon economist who has testified for the defense in some Strike 3 lawsuits.
One might ask why Meta might be downloading porn for any reason, bot-training or otherwise. Meta, in its defense filings, says Strike 3 has offered no proof that Meta, as a corporation, was responsible for the downloading. If it happened, Meta says, it would have been inadvertent.
“Tens of thousands of employees and innumerable contractors, visitors, and third parties access the internet at Meta every day,” it wrote in its motion to dismiss the case. “While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible … that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person — or any combination of such persons — was responsible for that activity.” The “sporadic downloads,” Meta says, “exhibit the hallmarks of personal use,” not corporate strategy.
This defense has borne fruit in other Strike 3 cases, in which defendants successfully argued simply having an IP address that was used to infringe wasn’t enough to prove they committed the infringements.
Strike 3 says it can show that the downloads weren’t the work of random users. Some downloads, it says, were coordinated among several Meta IP addresses, all based on the same algorithmic keywords and occurring simultaneously, suggesting that the infringements “took place within Meta’s walls.”
On Dec. 15, 2022, for instance, downloads apparently based on the keyword “teen” involved not only the movies “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Teen Titans Go to the Movies,” but also “Teen Sex Sessions 2” and “Teens love Tats XXX,” according to Lee’s ruling. Other simultaneous downloads swept up episodes of “The Big Bang Theory” and “Ted Lasso” out of order, though a putative human user would probably have downloaded them sequentially.
“It strains credulity,” Lee ruled, “to suggest that these correlations are mere coincidence and the product of individual human selections.” Rather, the use of an algorithm would account for “why pornography was downloaded alongside children’s cartoons and sitcoms. … The odds that multiple people using the Corporate IP addresses … coincidentally torrented the same show, rather than simply streaming it, on the exact same day strains belief.”
The case is still at an early stage. For Strike 3, the lawsuit offers the potential of a big score. But Meta has signaled that it’s not inclined to roll over like a family man caught downloading skin flicks and worrying about his reputation at home and around town.
This time, Strike 3 may have a fight on its hands with a defendant that has money to burn.
Business
Rivian lays off hundreds of workers days after new vehicle deliveries begin
Rivian said it’s laying off hundreds of employees, or less than 2% of its workforce, as part of restructuring efforts aimed at making the company profitable for the first time.
The layoffs come one week after the Irvine-based electric vehicle maker began deliveries of its highly anticipated R2 SUV.
The company is hoping that the R2, which is currently only available as a performance version for $57,990, could attract more customers with its lower price tag.
But industry analysts said the performance R2 is still not affordable for many Americans, and investors reacted with disappointment to the first deliveries June 9, with shares falling 7% that day. On Wednesday, Rivian shares gained .33 points, or 2%, to close at $16.26.
The company said a standard version of the R2 starting at $44,990 will become available next year.
The layoffs took effect on Monday and affected Rivian’s service and customer organization employees, including sales and marketing teams. Rivian employed 15,232 people as of December.
“We recently restructured a handful of teams within Rivian as we work to profitably scale our business,” a company spokesperson said.
The laid off employees have been provided with severance packages and are encouraged to apply for other open roles with Rivian, the company said.
Rivian may be trying to reach profitability by saving money on labor, said Ivan Drury, director of insights at Edmunds.
“You have to wonder to what degree they do plan on replacing those people with some level of AI and automation,” he said.
Rivian, which is pouring money into autonomous vehicle efforts including a robotaxi partnership with Uber, has struggled to turn a profit with its luxury EVs.
The layoffs are likely not directly tied to recent reception of the R2, auto analyst Brian Moody said.
“I think that it’s declining interest in new electric cars, and maybe declining interest in expensive things,” he said. “We can surmise that [layoff] process began long before the R2 launch.”
The company lost $3.6 billion last year and recently said it is no longer expecting to meet its 2027 adjusted core profit target.
There has been a broad cooling of the EV market. Major automakers including Honda and Ford have cut back their EV options as excitement for the vehicles has fallen under the Trump administration. A $7,500 EV tax credit for new vehicles expired in September.
Rivian cut 4.5% of its workforce in October, or more than 600 jobs, following the expiration of the credit. The company also laid off about 200 employees in September.
In a recent turnaround, Rivian surprised the market with strong earnings results in February, reporting gross profits for 2025 of $144 million compared with a net loss in 2024 of $1.2 billion. Gross profit is revenue without subtracting the cost of production expenses.
In its earnings release, Rivian credited the swing to “strong software and services performance, higher average selling prices, and reductions in cost per vehicle.”
“The company has never posted a full year’s worth of profit, and this is the one lever they can pull to rightsize things,” Drury said.
-
Detroit, MI17 seconds agoFirst responders honored after rescuing 12 people from capsized sailboats near Belle Isle
-
San Francisco, CA12 minutes agoOakland man faces hate crime charges for Castro District attack
-
Dallas, TX15 minutes agoAt least 4 injured after vehicle drives into Dallas crowd, driver arrested
-
Miami, FL20 minutes agoMiami Central students prepare for life changing trip to Zimbabwe amid funding challenges
-
Boston, MA27 minutes agoGiannis to Boston is a possibility. Should the Knicks be worried?
-
Denver, CO30 minutes agoDenver Public Schools’ decline in enrollment continues to reshape district
-
Seattle, WA35 minutes agoWoo twirls 7 scoreless innings in bounceback outing vs. Orioles
-
San Diego, CA42 minutes agoNASCAR makes history with inaugural Naval Base Coronado race