7. Legal Disputes

7.1 Criminal case at the Provincial Court of Phuket

Pre-Trial Case No. 3496/2542 between:

  Public Prosecutor “Plaintiff”

  Laguna Grande Limited “Co-Plaintiff”

  Mr. Akara Mumin “1^(st) Defendant”

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

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

  Background

  The Company reported to the Cherngtalay subdistrict police station in
  January 1999 that the defendants had trespassed on its land covered by
  title deed 5916. The inquiry officer investigated and found that the
  defendants were trespassing on the said land to conduct their business
  with a view to taking possession of the land intentionally. Therefore,
  the inquiry officer prepared a prosecution charge against the
  defendants. The case was then handed over to the Phuket public
  prosecutor for action. A prosecution charge was then issued against
  the defendants by the public prosecutor. In late 1999, the Company
  submitted a request to be a co-plaintiff in this case in hope of
  obtaining a judgement requiring the defendants to demolish their
  construction and remove it from the land. On 15 October 2004, the
  Phuket Provincial Court found in favor of the plaintiffs.

  The Present Circumstances

  The defendants have appealed against the judgment of the Court of
  First Instance to the Appeal Court. Currently, this case is pending
  judgment of the Appeal Court.

  The Opinion of the Lawyer

  We believe that the Company shall prevail at the Appeal Court.

  The Management Opinion

  This case is one of several cases where we protect our land title
  rights through the Courts as normally practiced by the company. This
  case should not affect our ongoing operations.

  7.2 Criminal case with charge of encroachment on the state property at
  Laguna Beach Resort Hotel

  Black Case No 1635/2548 between:

  Phuket Public Prosecutor “Prosecutor”

  Laguna Beach Club Limited “1^(st) Accused”

  Mr. Phitak Boonpojjanasoontorn “2^(nd) Accused”

Background

  On 24 April 2005, the public prosecutor brought this case to the
  Phuket Provincial Court charging the accused as having jointly
  encroached on the state property which is for the use of the public.
  If the Company were to lose this case then it would be required to
  tear down the offending structures of the beachfront bar, the water
  sports building and a sala.

The Present Circumstances

  On 28 March 2006, the Phuket Provincial Court of First Instance made
  the judgment in favor of the accused by dismissing the prosecution of
  the public prosecutor. The public prosecutor has lodged the appeal
  against the aforementioned judgment and this is currently pending
  judgment of the Appeal Court.

  The Opinion of the Lawyer

  The accused constructed the Laguna Beach Resort Hotel in compliance
  with the plan that had been approved by all of the respective
  authorities and before the boundary lines were declared as the state
  property.

  The Management Opinion

  As all of the licenses and permits required to construct the hotel
  have been obtained, we are confident that we will prevail in this
  case.

7.3 Civil case against trespasser on land at Sheraton Grande Laguna
Phuket

  Case no 1717/2541 at Phuket Provincial Court between:

  Bangtao Development Limited “Plaintiff”

  Mrs. Wasana Ar-Mud “Defendant”

Background

  This case relate to hawker who has trespassed on the land title NS3
  374, which belongs to Bangtao Development Limited. Case against the
  defendant was brought to court on 19 November 1998 alleging
  trespassing on this land. The Court of First Instance and the Appeal
  Court found in favor of the defendant, reasoning that the Court was
  not able to find evidence that the defendant had trespassed on the
  Company’s land, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff
  later appealed against the judgments to the Appeal Court and the
  Supreme Court.

  The Present Circumstances

  The Appeal Court made the judgment on 14 November 2006 in favor of the
  defendant. The plaintiff has lodged the appeal against the
  aforementioned judgment and this is currently pending judgment of the
  Supreme Court.

The Opinion of the Lawyer

  At the Supreme Court’s consideration, further related legal points had
  been presented to the Court and no further hearings are required.

  The Management Opinion

  This case is one of several cases where we protect our land title
  rights through the Courts as normally practiced by the company, and
  should not affect our ongoing operations.

4.  Civil case with the revocation of the resolution of the
    Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders and cancellation of
    the registration of the resolution

  Black case no 6710/2550 between :

  Thai Military Bank Public Company Limited “Plaintiff”

  Laguna Resorts and Hotels Public Company Limited “Defendant”

  Background

  The case was brought to the Southern Bangkok Civil Court on 18 July
  2007, in which the Company is defendant. Upon the plaint, the
  plaintiff asks the Court to revoke the resolution of the Extraordinary
  General Meeting of Shareholders of the defendant No.1/2007 held on 4
  July 2007 (the “EGM”) and to cancel the registration of the
  aforementioned resolution on the grounds that the defendant and the
  chairman of the EGM did not allow the plaintiff to attend the EGM. The
  plaintiff is not a shareholders of the Company. The Company believes
  that EGM was duly held and approved the resolution in compliance with
  its Articles of Association and applicable laws.

  The Present Circumstances

  This case is currently pending judgment of the Court of First
  Instance.

  The Opinion of the Lawyer

  If the judgment is in the plaintiff’s favor, the EGM no. 1/2007 of the
  defendant held on 4 July 2007 and the aforementioned resolution of the
  defendant registered with the Public Company Registry Office must be
  revoked.

  If the judgment is in the defendant’s favor, the EGM no.1/2007 of the
  defendant held on 4 July 2007 will not be revoked.

  The Management Opinion

  The EGM no. 1/2007 was duly held and approved the resolution in
  compliance with the Articles of Association of the Company and
  applicable laws. Furthermore, the EGM resolution was accepted for
  registration by the Public Company Registry Office.