2.7 Litigation

2.7.1 The Bangtao Case

Certain companies of the Thai Wah Group have taken legal action against
THL and its contractor claiming damages totaling Baht 299,446,000 for
beach erosion which they attribute to the effects of the offshore
dredging in Bangtao Bay. The case was filed in 1991. However, the areas
concerned are within THLs mining concession areas. The case had been in
hearings at the Civil Court for the several years.

On 7 December 1999, The Civil Court, Bangkok ruled in favor of the
defendants: THL and Seatran Mining Company Limited. On 29 March 2002,
the Appellate Court judged to stand firm with the Civil Court’s ruling
to dismiss the case and that the Company and Seatran Mining Co.,Ltd are
not therefore, deemed responsible for the damaged claimed by the
plaintiff. The four plaintiffs are to pay legal fee to the Company and
its former contractor at Baht 50,000 each. Subsequent to this rule,
however, the four plaintiffs lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court ruling dated 15 September 2005 as read on 20 December 2005
judged to stand firm with the Appellate Court’s ruling to dismiss the
case. The four plaintiff are to pay legal fee to the Company and its
former contractor at the Supreme Court level at the rate at Baht
50,000.- each.

2.7.2 Offshore Tin Mining Operation

The Phuket District’s Attorney filed a lawsuit against the Company
concerning offshore tin mining operations operated by the Company’s
contractor. The charges were filed on July 31 2003 and consist of the
following:

1) Criminal Case No. Black 2825/2546 Consist of the charges as:

(1) The slime diffusion devices were not used for the dredge during the
    dredging operations over the ground.

(2) The engines installed on board the dredge were changed without
    notification submitted to the local Mineral Resources Office.

The Phuket Province Court ruled on 5 November 2004 at 13.30 hrs. in
favor of the Plaintiff that the Company had to pay a fine of Baht 5,000
each charge. The Court recommended that if the Company did not agree
with the judgment shall be able to lodge an appeal to the Appellate
Court. Thus, the Company lodge an appeal to the Appellate Court on 29
December 2004 and now the case is under the consideration of the
Appellate Court.

2) Criminal Case No. Black 2826/2546 Consist of the charges as:

(1) Carried out mining operations beyond the allowed period of November
    through April in each year, which is not in accordance with the
    mining scheme.

(2) Carried out mining operations without any boundary buoys installed,
    which is not in accordance with the mining scheme.

(3) Carried out mining operations only for 68 working days which is less
    than the 120 days required during each 12 month period.

The Phuket Province Court judged and dismissed to all the said three
charges on 16 December 2004.

2.7.3 Sky Cliff’s Case

Construction Cost Consultants Limited Partnership initiated legal action
against Sky Cliff Limited, a subsidiary of the Company, for full payment
of service fee amount Baht 491,531.24, to the Civil Court on 25 May
2005. Sky Cliff Limited rejected the claim as not all services have been
rendered pursuant to agreement. The Civil Court make an appointment for
the plaintiff shall present the evident on 23-25 May 2006 and the
defendant shall present the evident on 26, 29, and 30 May 2006.