6. Legal Disputes

As of 31 December 2012, there is no outstanding material litigation
against the Company or its subsidiaries which may have a negative effect
on our assets exceeding 5% of shareholder’s equity. In addition, there
is no lawsuit, which could have a significant effect on our business.

Material Lawsuit of our subsidiaries

Eastman Litigation

Eastman filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court against
AlphaPet, IRP Rotterdam, IRP Workington, IRH Rotterdam and Indorama
Polymers Public Company Limited on December 18, 2009 in connection with
commercial production at the AlphaPet PET facility. The AlphaPet PET
facility accounts for around 8% of our PET installed capacity.

IRP Rotterdam, IRP Workington and IRH Rotterdam (the “European
Defendants”) entered into a Technology License Agreement with Eastman in
connection with our acquisition of Eastman’s northwest European PET and
PTA businesses in March 2008. Pursuant to the acquisition agreement,
certain Eastman employees became employees of the European Defendants.
In addition, pursuant to the Technology License Agreement, the European
Defendants received a license to use licensed technology to make certain
commercial products at the IRP Workington PET facility, the IRP
Rotterdam PET facility and the IRH Rotterdam PTA facility.

In the complaint, Eastman alleged that:

-   AlphaPet and Indorama Polymers Public Company Limited infringe
    certain patents owned by Eastman by making, using, selling and
    offering for sale polyester monomer and polyester polymer melt phase
    products within the United States, and supplying polyester polymer
    products to others that make and sell plastic containers within the
    United States;

-   Indorama Polymers Public Company Limited and the European Defendants
    breached the Technology License Agreement because former Eastman
    employees who were in possession of Eastman confidential,
    proprietary and trade secret information had improperly used and
    disclosed such information during the design, start-up and/or
    operation of AlphaPet’s melt-to-resin PET manufacturing process; and

-   The defendants misappropriated one or more of Eastman’s unidentified
    trade secrets.

Eastman requested the court to, among other things, award compensatory,
punitive and/or exemplary damages in favor of Eastman, including
reasonable royalties, enjoin AlphaPet from further infringement of
various patents, enjoin the defendants from unauthorized use of
Eastman’s confidential, proprietary and trade secret information,
including injunctive relief, and award interest, costs and attorney’s
fees. The complaint filed on December 18, 2009 does not request for
pre-trial temporary injunctive relief. On March 12, 2010, AlphaPet, IRP
Rotterdam, IRP Workington, IRH Rotterdam and Indorama Polymers Public
Company Limited submitted a motion to dismiss due to Eastman’s failure
to state a breach of contract and trade secret claim and due to a lack
of personal jurisdiction over Indoram Polymers Public Company Limited.
On May 19, 2010 Eastman opposed defendants’ motion to dismiss and
additionally submitted a motion to compel personal jurisdictional
discovery. On November 4, 2011, the court granted in part the motion to
dismiss due to Eastman’s failure to state a breach of contract and trade
secret claim and granted in part the motion to compel personal
jurisdiction discovery.

The AlphaPet PET facility uses technology called melt-to-resin that was
licensed from Uhde Inventa Fischer AG. AlphaPet contracted with Uhde
Inventa Fischer AG to oversee construction of the AlphaPet PET facility
and provide design services and equipment.

In January 2011, DAK Americas LLC (“DAK”) acquired Eastman and Grupo
Petromex, S.A. DE C.V. (“Petromex”) acquired the intellectual property
on technology of Eastman, with DAK as the exclusive licensee. On
February 18, 2011, Eastman filed a motion to substitute DAK and Petromex
as plaintiffs, but AlphaPet and the European Defendants opposed the
motion. On June 1, 2011, Eastman requested a joint status and scheduling
conference with Eastman, DAK, Petromex, AlphaPet and European
Defendants.

As a result of DAK’s and Petromex’s acquisition mentioned above, DAK and
Petromex filed another complaint against AlphaPet in the Delaware
District Court on August 10, 2011, on the patent infringement ground,
claiming that AlphaPet has infringed certain patents by making, using,
selling and offering for sale products or composition in the polyester
field. DAK and Petromex requested the court to, among other things,
grant an injunction against continued infringement, award damages, costs
and attorney fees.

On December 29, 2011, Eastman’s case and the case of DAK and Petromex
were consolidated.

However, in May 2012, the parties to the lawsuit entered into a
settlement agreement to drop the lawsuit and a request to dismiss the
case was filed with the Delaware District Court on May 30, 2012. On June
4, 2012, the Delaware District Court dismissed the case.

Remarks:

AlphaPet = AlphaPet, Inc.

IRP Rotterdam = Indorama Polymers Rotterdam B.V.

IRP Workington = Indorama Polymers Workington Ltd.

IRH Rotterdam = Indorama Holdings Rotterdam B.V.

M&G and Cobarr Litigation

M&G USA Corporation (“M&G”) and Cobarr S.P.A. (“Cobarr”) filed a
complaint in the Delaware District Court against Auriga Polymers Inc.
(“API”), Indorama Ventures USA Inc. (“IVL US”), Indorama Polymers Public
Company Limited and Invista North America S.A.R.L. (which we acquired
Invista PET facility in March 2011) on November 15, 2011. In the
complaint, M&G and Cobarr allege that defendants infringe certain
patents owned by M&G and Cobarr by making, using, selling and offering
for sale polyshield PET products within the United States. On January
23, 2012, M&G and Cobarr agreed to dismiss the case against Indorama
Polymers Public Company Limited. The parties are in the discovery
process which is expected to be completed by February 15, 2013.

We believe that all of the claims of M&G and Cobarr are without merit.

However, we cannot predict when these legal proceedings will be
completed and we cannot assure you that the Delaware District Court will
dismiss the claims or rule in our favor. The Delaware District Court
could grant temporary or permanent injunctive relief against us (which
could result in the cessation of operations at the Invista PET
facility), deliver a ruling in favor of M&G and/or Cobarr and/or award
substantial monetary damages against us and/or impose royalties.

However, on December 12, 2012, the parties to the lawsuit entered into a
settlement agreement to drop the lawsuit and a request to dismiss the
case was filed with the Delaware District Court on December 13, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the Delaware District Court dismissed the case.

Lawsuit associated with the Company but we are not direct party in
lawsuit

Lawsuit that we are not a party but may have a material adverse effect
on our business.

Lawsuit regarding improvement of project to increase production
efficiency and improve the air pollution treatment system of Indorama
Petrochem PTA Facility, which was filed a lawsuit in the Thai
Administrative Court

On June 19, 2009, the Stop Global Warming Association and a number of
other people living in Map Ta Phut, Ban Chang and Muang District, Rayong
Province (the “Claimants”) filed a lawsuit in the Thai Central
Administrative Court (the “CAC”) against various Thai governmental
entities and Ministers (the “Respondents”). This lawsuit requests the
CAC to render a judgment ordering the Respondents to revoke the
environmental impact assessment reports (the “EIA Report”) and to revoke
their approvals of projects or activities required to prepare the EIA
Report that are located in Map Ta Phut, Ban Chang and the surrounding
area in Rayong Province, Thailand. The lawsuit alleges that 76 projects
in such areas may cause serious impact on the community with regard to
the quality of environment, natural resources and health. The Claimants
also requested that the CAC suspend any current activities of such
projects, activities or operations of applicants or owners because they
may have breached relevant procedures specified under the Thai
Constitution B.E. 2550 (the “Constitution”) and other relevant laws,
including the commissioning of a health impact assessment report (a “HIA
Report”), the holding of a public hearing and the hearing of opinions
from independent environmental organizations, prior to operating such
projects or activities. One of the projects named in the lawsuit is the
improvement of project to increase production efficiency and improve the
air pollution treatement system of Indorama Petrochem PTA facility,
which was approved by the Minister of Industry.

On September 2, 2010, the CAC issued the judgment revoking the
permission granted to the projects or activities which may cause serious
impact on the community with regard to the quality of environment,
natural resources and health and which have not completely complied with
the provision of Paragraph two of Section 76 of the Constitution, as
required by the Notification of the Ministry of National Resources and
Environment re: Determination of Type, Size and Conducts for the
Projects or Activities which may cause Serious Impact on the Community
with regard to the Quality of Environment, Natural Resources and Health
that requires the Governmental Agencies, State Enterprises or Private
Corporate to Prepare the Environment Impact Assessment B.E. 2553, dated
August 31, 2010 (the “Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources
and Environment). According to the judgment, the project of Indorama
Petrochem is not classified as a project for which permission to operate
the projects is revoked.

However, on October 1, 2010, the Claimants filed an appeal to the
Supreme Administrative Court (the “SAC”) requesting the SAC to reverse
the judgment of the CAC and not to rely on the Notification of the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and to rule that the
Respondents must revoke the environment impact assessment reports and
permission granted to the projects or activities which have been
approved or obtained from August 24, 2007 onwards until the study and
assessment of impact on the quality of environment and health has been
completed as required by the Constitution.

On December 7, 2010, the Respondents submitted the statement of defense
against the appeal of the Claimants. At present, the SAC has not yet
issued the judgment on this case.

During the appeal proceedings, since the project of Indorama Petrochem
is not within a project in which the permission is revoked by the CAC,
Indorama Petrochem therefore can operate the business of the PTA
facility. However, the Company cannot ensure that the court proceedings
and the judgment to be rendered by the SAC will not cause an impact on
the project of Indorama Petrochem to the extent that the permission will
be revoked or the construction of buildings or the business operation of
Indorama Petrochem will be suspended.

The operation of the plant is continuing normally.

Lawsuit regarding improvement of the projct to improve the reverse
osmosis (RO) system of Indorama Petrochem PTA Facility, which was filed
a lawsuit in the Thai Central Administrative Court

On March 10, 2010, the Claimants filed a lawsuit in the CAC against the
Respondents. This lawsuit requests the CAC to render a judgment ordering
the Respondents to revoke the EIA Report and to revoke their approvals
of projects or activities required to prepare the EIA Report that are
located in Map Ta Phut, Ban Chang and the surrounding area in Rayong
Province, Thailand. The lawsuit alleges that 9 projects in such areas
may cause serious impact on the community with regard to the quality of
environment, natural resources and health. The Claimants also requested
that the CAC suspend any current activities of such projects, activities
or operations of applicants or owners because they may have breached
relevant procedures specified under the Constitution and other relevant
laws, including the commissioning of a HIA Report, the holding of a
public hearing and the hearing of opinions from independent
environmental organizations, prior to operating such projects or
activities. One of the projects named in the lawsuit is the improvement
of the project to improve the reverse osmosis (RO) system of Indorama
Petrochem PTA facility, which was approved by the Minister of Industry.

On February 28, 2011, the CAC issued an order dismissing the petition
for an injunction of the Claimants on the grounds that the facts claimed
by the Claimants are not sufficient to issue a court injunction and
there is no evidence to prove that the Claimants will be damaged by the
operation of the projects.

At present, the CAC has not yet issued the judgment on this case.

The operation of the plant is continuing normally.