6. Legal Disputes

6.1 Legal Disputes of Advanced Info Service Public Company Limited (the
Company)

(1) TOT Public Company Limited has submitted a dispute to the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, the Arbitration Institute, no.
black 9/2551 on 22 January 2008, demanding the Company to pay additional
payment of revenue sharing amounting to Baht 31,463 million, the sum of
which is the same amount as the excise tax that the Company had
delivered to the Excise Department.

On 20 May 2011, the Arbitral Tribunal unanimously resolved to dismiss
the disputes by giving the reason which can be summarized that the
Company had lawfully paid the revenue sharing. Therefore, the Company
has not committed a breach of the agreement and the Company does not
have to pay any additional revenue sharing to TOT.

TOT has submitted a request to the Central Administrative Court to set
aside the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. At present, the case is
pending consideration of the Central Administrative Court.

(2) On 7 March 2008, CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT) has
submitted a case to the Civil Court ref. no.black-1245/2551 against the
Company as the defendant no.1 and AIN GlobalComm Company Limited (AIN),
a subsidiary, as the defendant no.2 demanding the Company and AIN to
jointly pay for damage in the amount of Bath 583 million (inclusive of
interest) by claiming that the said damage has arisen from the change of
the connection setting of the international direct dialing service from
using the symbol “+” for the code 001 of CAT to “+” for the code 005 of
AIN during 1 March 2007-7 March 2008 without prior notification to
subscriber.

On 17 December 2009, The Civil Court has dismissed the case as the facts
cannot be proved that CAT has either an exclusive right to use the
symbol “+” or the right to prohibit the Company and AIN to use the
symbol “+” and it cannot also been proved that the changing of the
connection setting of the international direct dialing service from
using the symbol “+” for the code 001 of CAT to “+” for the code 005 of
AIN has caused mistaken to the subscribers who use international direct
dialing service that they are using the code 001 of CAT, therefore, the
acts of the Company have not infringed any right of CAT and also of AIN
which CAT alleged to jointly commit the wrongdoing with the Company have
not infringed the right of CAT as well.

In addition, CAT has submitted an appeal against the judgment of Civil
Court on 10 March 2010. At present, the case is pending consideration of
the Appeal Court.

(3) On 11 June 2010, the Company has submitted a dispute to the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, the Arbitration Institute, no.
black 48/2553 demanding TrueMove Co., Ltd to pay the interconnection
charge under the Interconnection Agreement for Bath 89 million (excluded
VAT) plus interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum computing from
the default date until full payment is made. At present, the dispute is
in the process of the arbitration procedures.

(4) On 9 March 2011, the Company has submitted the dispute to the
Dispute Reconciliation Office, Arbitration Institute ref. no. Black
19/2554 requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to make an award that TOT has
no right to demand the Company to pay the interconnection charges of the
17^(th) - 20^(th) Concession year by not allowing the Company to deduct
the interconnection charges which the Company has to pay to other
operators before sharing the revenue to TOT in the amount of Baht 17,803
million plus interest at the rate of 1.25 percent per month according to
TOT’ letter dated 26 January 2011.

At present, the dispute is pending consideration of the Arbitral
Tribunal.

(5) On 11 May 2011, the Company has submitted a dispute to the Dispute
Reconciliation Office, Arbitration Institute ref. no. Black 40/2554
requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to make an award to order TOT to
surrender the letter of guarantee for the revenue sharing of Year 17-20
and prohibit TOT to claim any money from the bank and also to pay the
bank commission for the letter of guarantee including

the damage for the Company’s reputation and financial credit in the
amount of Baht 30 million. At present, the dispute is pending
consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal.

On 5 October 2012, the Company has submitted a dispute to the
Arbitration Institute ref. no. Black 119/2555 requesting the Arbitral
Tribunal to make an award to order TOT to surrender the letter of
guarantee for the revenue sharing of Year 21 and prohibit TOT to claim
any money from the bank and

also to pay the bank commission for the letter of guarantee including
the damage for the Company’s reputation and financial credit in the
amount of Baht 20 million. At present, the dispute is pending
consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal.

(6) On 27 May 2011, the Company has filed a lawsuit against the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) as first defendant and the Secretary
General of NTC as second defendant to Central Administrative Court, case
no. Black 1226/2554 requesting the Court to revoke the Order of NTC
according to a letter ref. TorChor 7300/4103 dated 25 May 2010 and ref.
SorBorTor. 54/2554 dated 28 February 2011 notifying the Company to amend
the drafted Pre-paid mobile service agreement which prohibited the
condition concerning the validity term. At present the case is pending
consideration of the Central Administrative Court.

(7) On 2 July 2012, the Company has filed a lawsuit against the National
Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) to the Central
Administrative Court, case no. Black 1067/2555 requesting the Court to
the Order of NBTC on Maximum Rate of Service Fee for Domestic Mobile
Phone Voice Services B.E. 2555which has required the collection of
domestic voice services fee at the rate of not exceeding 0.99
Baht/minute and enforceable only on the significant market dominance
(which on 30 September 2010 the NTC issued an order determining the
Company to be the significant market dominance over the retail market of
domestic mobile phone services and domestic mobile network service
according to the NTC Order no. 32/2553). At present the case is pending
consideration of the Central Administrative Court.

(8) On 16 January 2013, the Company has submitted a dispute to the
Arbitration Institute ref. no. Black 4/2556 requesting the Arbitral
Tribunal to make an award to order TOT to pay revenue sharing of
international direct dial service according to the Amendment no. 3 and 4
which TOT has been in default of payment to the Company as from November
2008 to October 2012 for the total amount of Baht 1,375 million
inclusive of the interest at the rate as stipulated in the Agreement. At
present, the dispute is pending consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal.

2.  Legal Disputes of Digital Phone Company Limited (DPC), a subsidiary
    of the Company.

(1) CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT) has submitted a dispute
    (Case no. Black 3/2551) to the Arbitration Institute and the Dispute
    Reconciliation Office, Justice Court Office on 9 January 2008
    demanding DPC a subsidiary of the Company to pay additional revenue
    sharing for Baht 2,449 million under the Digital PCN (Personal
    Communication Network) Agreement plus penalty at the rate of 1.25
    percent per month of the unpaid amount of each year computing from
    the default date until full payment is made totaling Baht 3,410
    million Such claimed amount is the same amount of the excise tax
    which DPC has delivered during 16 September 2003 to 15 September
    2007, and deducted from revenue sharing pursuant to the resolution
    of the cabinet on 11 February 2003 and as same as the standard
    practice of the telecommunication business industry.

On 1 March 2011, the Arbitral Tribunal has resolved to dismiss the
dispute by giving the reason which can be summarized that the original
debt had completely been paid and extinguished. CAT cannot reclaim for
the alleged deficit amount, including the penalty and the value added
tax.

At present, CAT has submitted a request to the Central Administrative
Court to set aside the award of the Arbitral Tribunal and the case is
pending consideration of the Central Administrative Court.

(2) CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT) has submitted a dispute to
    the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, the Arbitration Institute
    (Case no. Black 68/2551) on 29 July 2008, demanding DPC to pay the
    Access Charge which DPC had deducted and did not deliver to CAT
    (during 7th-10th concession years) amounting to Baht 165 million
    plus penalty at the rate of 1.25 percent per month computing as at
    31 July 2008 totaling Baht 222 million.

Later, on 15 October 2009, CAT has additionally submitted a dispute to
the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, the Arbitration Institute
(Case no. Black 96/2552) demanding DPC to pay Access Charge which DPC
had deducted and did not deliver to CAT of 11th concession year in
addition to the Case no. Black 68/2551 in the amount of Baht 23 million
plus penalty at the rate of 1.25 percent per month computing as at 15
October 2009 totaling Baht 26 million, the total claimed amount of both
cases:

Baht 248 million and on 27 December 2010 the Arbitration Panel has
ordered both cases to be trial together for having the same facts.

On 23 March 2012, the Arbitral Tribunal has unanimously resolved to
dismiss all disputes of CAT by giving the reason which can be summarized
that since CAT has not yet paid the interconnection charge for the part
of which DPC has to pay to TOT according to the Interconnection Charge
Agreement, therefore, it shall be deemed that CAT has still no right to
claim 2 times of interconnection charge from DPC, and in attestation of
CAT, it is not admissible that the payments made by DPC of the revenue
sharing to CAT in each year are so incomplete that it can be regarded as
a breach of the Agreement which entitle CAT to claim for payment of
additional revenue sharing and penalty from DPC.

At present, CAT has submitted a request to the Central Administrative
Court to set aside the award of the Arbitral Tribunal and the case is
pending consideration of the Central Administrative Court.

(3) CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT) has submitted a dispute to
    the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, the Arbitration Institute
    (Case no. Black 8/2552) on 3 February 2009, demanding DPC to deliver
    and transfer an ownership of 3,343 towers including 2,653 power
    supply equipment the Digital PCN (Personal Communication Network)
    Agreement. Failure to do so, DPC must reimburse Baht 2,230 million
    to CAT. DPC considers that all disputed assets, towers and the power
    supply equipment are not the property as stipulated in clause 2.1 of
    the Agreement which DPC is obligated to deliver and transfer an
    ownership under the agreement. At present, the dispute is pending
    consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal.

On 18 July 2012, the Arbitral Tribunal has unanimously resolved to
dismiss all disputes of CAT by giving the reason which can be summarized
that the right of CAT to demand DPC to deliver the properties which are
the object of the agreement shall be in accordance with Clause 12 of the
Digital PCN (Personal Communication Network) Agreement, namely, after 60
days as from the termination date of the Agreement. Therefore, the
submission of a dispute is regarded as a premature exercise of the right
under the Agreement.

At present, CAT has submitted a request to the Central Administrative
Court to set aside the award of the Arbitral Tribunal and the case is
pending consideration of the Central Administrative Court.

(4) On 7 April 2010 DPC has submitted a dispute to the Alternative
    Dispute Resolution Office, the Arbitration Institute (Case no. Black
    27/2553) requesting for the Arbitration Panel to give an order to
    CAT to revoke its allegation that DPC has breached the Agreement
    with CAT for having entered into an agreement for the use of DPC
    network with the Company without consent of CAT and will terminate
    the Agreement with DPC according to the letter dated 6 January 2010
    and also demanding CAT to pay for damage in the amount of Baht 50
    million.

On 15 July 2010 CAT submitted a dispute (Case no. Black 62/2553) to the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, the Arbitration Institute
demanding DPC to pay additional remuneration for concession year 10-12
incurred due to DPC has reduced the roaming charge rate between DPC –
AIS from Baht 2.10 to Baht 1.10 during the period of 1 April 2007 - 31
December 2008 without approval of CAT in the amount of Baht 1,640
million plus penalty calculating up to March 2010 in the amount of

Baht 365 million totaling Baht 2,000 million and also the penalty at the
rate of 1.25 percent per month calculating from April 2010.

On 12 September 2011, CAT submitted another dispute to the Arbitration
Institute, the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Office the Judiciary;
Case no. Black 89/2554 demanding additional remuneration for concession
year 12 for a period of 1 April 2009 - 15 June 2009 in the amount of
Baht 113 million.

Later, the Arbitration Institute has ordered all 3 disputes to be trial
together and such disputes are pending consideration of the Arbitral
Tribunal.

(5) On 9 May 2011, TOT has filed a lawsuit against CAT as the defendant
    no.1 and DPC as the defendant no.2to the Central Administrative
    Court, case no.black-1009/2554 demanding CAT and DPC to jointly pay
    the Access Charge under the Interconnection Agreement of DPC dated 8
    September 1998 as follows:

1) The Access Charge, which DPC has to pay to TOT calculating on the
amount of the mobile number which DPC had rendered the service in each
month at the of Baht 200 per number, in the amount of Baht 432 million;

2) The Access Charge, which CAT has to pay to TOT calculating on a half
of the revenue sharing which CAT had received from DPC, in the amount of
Baht 2,330 million; and

3) The Access Charge, which CAT did not fully pay to TOT due to the
deduction of the Access Charge at the rate of Baht 22 / number / month,
in the amount of Baht 191 million

The total amount of claim is Baht 2,954 million plus interest. At
present, the case is pending consideration of the Central Administrative
Court.

(6) On 24 August 2012, CAT submitted a dispute (Case no. Black 110/2555)
    to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, the Arbitration
    Institute demanding DPC to pay additional remuneration for
    concession year 10-14 in addition to the interconnection charge
    received (gross income) before deduction of the interconnection
    charge paid in the amount of Baht 183 million plus penalty at the
    rate of 1.25 percent per month. The dispute is now pending
    consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal.

(7) On 8 October 2012, DPC has submitted a dispute to the Arbitration
    Institute requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to make an award to order
    CAT to surrender the letter of guarantee for the revenue sharing of
    Year 10-14 and prohibit CAT to claim any money from the bank and
    also to pay the bank commission for the letter of guarantee
    including the damage for DPC’s reputation and financial credit in
    the amount of Baht 109 million. At present, the dispute is pending
    consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal.