2.7 Litigation

The litigation report as of 16 January 2001 is as follows:

+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Debtors’ Names   | The     | Action Taken                           |
|                  | Sued    |                                        |
|                  |         |                                        |
|                  | Amoun   |                                        |
|                  | t(Baht) |                                        |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Mr.Samai         | 18,91   | The court judged that the 4 defendants |
| Leesakul’s group | 3205.45 | pay back the Baht 16,628,507.97 to the |
|                  |         | company together with interest from    |
|                  |         | the principal money. All 4 defendants  |
|                  |         | asked to appeal the judgment and to    |
|                  |         | abate of enforcement.                  |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Mrs.B            | 1,407   | The court judged that the company lose |
| ussara Rojsotorn | ,790.00 | the case and the company had appealed  |
|                  |         | to the court on 27 August 2001.        |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Mr.Somsak Ch     | 428     | The court judged that the company win  |
| aichareonwattana | ,149.14 | the case and it was during appealing   |
|                  |         | from the defendant and abatement of    |
|                  |         | enforcement.                           |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Mr.Cha           | 4,267   | The court judged that the company lose |
| iyaporn Eamwason | ,271.61 | the case and the company had already   |
|                  |         | appealed to the court.                 |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Mr.Siric         | 3,172   | At the stage of questioning the        |
| hai Laohaverarit | ,771.93 | defendant’s witnesses                  |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Mrs.D            | 65,659  | The defendant was alleged to be        |
| uangporn Oumsiri | ,900.14 | bankrupt and the court had ordered to  |
|                  |         | confiscate the defendant’s properties  |
|                  |         | but the defendant did not have enough  |
|                  |         | property to settle the debts. And now  |
|                  |         | it is at the stage of waiting for the  |
|                  |         | court’s judgment on condemning the     |
|                  |         | defendant a bankrupt person.           |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Saha             | 18,     | The defendant was condemned to         |
| viriya City PCL. | 000,000 | rehabilitate its business and the      |
|                  |         | company had proposed for debt          |
|                  |         | settlement and now it is at the stage  |
|                  |         | of waiting for the opposing result     |
|                  |         | from the defendant.                    |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+
| Mr.Supac         | 3,      | The plaintiff had alleged Ms.Pimpa(the |
| hai Jitrisutpong | 301,317 | company’s ex-marketing) to be the      |
|                  |         | first defendant and the company to be  |
| (Plaintiff)      |         | the 2^(nd) defendant and the company   |
|                  |         | had proposed to give the statement and |
|                  |         | now it is at the stage of the court to |
|                  |         | question on the statement.             |
+------------------+---------+----------------------------------------+

The Management’s Comments

The management believes that all litigation cases mentioned above will
not bear significant effect on the company as the allowance for doubtful
debts was already set aside in full except for the case that the company
was sued as second defendant (Mr.Supachai’s case) that the company may
be held partially responsible for return of such securities. The company
therefore had purchased and set aside the Baht 1.2 million of securities
which were expected to be made responsible for.