7 Legal disputes

(1) Civil Case of the Provincial Court of Phuket, Pre-trial case No.
406/2534, Post-trial case No. 1656/2540 between:

Mr. Apichai Udomsub as “Plaintiff”

Bangtao Development Co., Ltd. and the other 22 people as “Defendants”

Background

In 1991, the plaintiff instituted a suit naming 22 people as the
defendants seeking to withdraw Nor Sor 3 Kor totaling 21 plots and
withdraw the registration of the title document after issuance of Nor
Sor 3 Kor. Among the 22 defendants are 4 subsidiary companies of LRH and
2 related companies. The companies concerned were at that time the
owners of 16 of the disputed land plots (the land located on Laguna
Project, the Sub-District of Cherngtalay, District of Thalang, Phuket)
purchased and registered in good faith from the original owner. The
plaintiff claimed that the disputed land was the estate of a deceased
person (his father) and that the distribution of the inheritance was not
in good faith. He also claimed that 2 of the executors cheated their
heir by issuing Nor Sor 3 Kor and transferring registration to the
subsidiary companies which are the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff
has asked the judge to withdraw the issuance of the Nor Sor 3 Kor and
transfer all the land to the estate of his father. The subsidiary
companies have defended the matter as a legal proceeding.

The judgement of the Court of First Instance and Appeal Court

On December 1997, the Court of First Instance gave the judgement and
dismissed the plaint. The judgement also stated that the executors
distributed the estate in good faith and the plaintiff has no right to
institute the case. The plaintiff then lodged the appeal to the Appeal
Court. On January 24, 2000, the affirmative judgement from the appeal
court was pronounced and the appeal dismissed. On 22 March, 2001 the
plaintiff brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The present circumstances

In December, 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the
Appeal Court. The case has now been finalised.

(2) Civil Case of the Provincial Court of Phuket, Pre-trial case No.
    6590/2534, Post-trial case No. 7822-26/2534 between

  Laguna (1) Co. Ltd. and the other 6 people as “Plaintiff”

  Tungkah Harbour Public Co., Ltd. and Seatran Mining Co., Ltd as
  “Defendants”

  Background

In 1991 six co-plaintiffs who are subsidiary companies of LRH sued both
defendants in the offence of wrongful acts, causing injury to the
property. The total capital for the case is Baht 229,446,000. The cause
of the action was because between 1989-1991 the beach at Bangtao Bay
(Sub-District of Cherngtalay, District of Thalang, Province of Phuket),
which is adjacent to Laguna Phuket, was damaged by erosion which
encroached onto the plaintiff’s land. Asian Institution of Technology
(“AIT”) has researched the matter and found that beach erosion was
caused by tin mine dredging in Bangtao Bay too close to the beach.
Before the case was brought to court the cooperation of the defendant
had been sought, but without success. Therefore, we have sued the
defendants for the courts to judge the compensation to be paid to the
plaintiff and also to prevent further dredging closer than 2 km to the
beach. The defendants have exercised their right to defend themselves in
the proceeding trial of this case.

The judgement of theCourt of First Instance

In December 1999, the Court of First Instance gave the judgement to
dismiss the plaint.

  The present circumstances

  Subsequent to the result of the Court of First Instance the company
  exercised its right of appeal to the Appeal Court which successfully
  reversed the judgement of Court of First Instance on 24 April, 2000.

  After reviewing the case, the Appeal Court made an offer to the
  parties to compromise on the case in order to reach a mutual agreement
  and find a solution. Unfortunately, the negotiations failed and the
  case has now returned to the Appeal Court for its judgement. We are
  now awaiting the judgement from the Appeal Court.

The opinion of the lawyer

After reviewing the documentary evidence submitted to the Court of First
Instance, there is a good chance that the Appeal Court will reverse the
judgement of the Court of First Instance in favour of the plaintiff. We
are quite confident that we have sufficient evidence to support the
case.

Executive Opinion 

  The Company produced good faith evidence with the support of research
  from AIT that the dredging by the defendant had caused beach erosion.
  We believe there is strong evidence to support a reversal of the
  decision by the Court of First Instance, and that it is worthwhile to
  continue to pursue the case.

  Management are confident that the pursuit of this case has no effect
  on the Company’s ongoing operations, and is optimistic that the
  outcome will include a cessation of all future dredging in Bang Tao
  Bay.

(3) Criminal Case of the Provincial Court of Phuket, Pre trial case no.
    3496/2542 between

Public Prosecutor “Plaintiff”

Laguna Grande Ltd. “Co-Plaintiff”

Mr. Akara Mumin “1^(st) Defendant”

Mr. Suwit Chidchiew “2^(nd) Defendant”

Mrs. Somporn Panmanee “3^(rd) Defendant”

Background

We filed a report to the Cherngtalay subdistrict police station in
January 1999 for the trespassing on the title deed no. 5916 owned by the
plaintiff. The police performed an investigation and found the
defendants were trespassing on our land to conduct their business with a
view to taking possession of the land. After the investigation, the
inquiry officer prepared a prosecution order against the defendants. The
file of the case was then passed to the Phuket public prosecutor for
their order. The prosecutor then issued the prosecution order against
the defendants, as they believe that the defendants are guilty. In late
1999 we submitted the documents to be the co-plaintiff to this case to
obtain a judgement that requires the defendants to demolish their
construction from the disputed land.

The present circumstance

The case is in the process of taking the evidence in the Court of First
Instance.

The opinion of the Lawyer

Before the company became a co-plaintiff with the prosecutor to this
case, we were well prepared with strong evidence. Although it is
expected that it will take at least 2-3 years from now to receive the
judgement, we think that the company shall prevail in this case.

The Executive opinion

This case is one of several where we are protecting our land title
rights through the courts. It is routine, and should have no affect on
our ongoing operations.