6. Legal Disputes

As of 31 March 2010, the Company and/or its subsidiaries have legal
disputes which are pending cases or disputes that: (a) may adversely
affect the assets of the Company or its subsidiaries; (b) may materially
affect the business operation of the Company; or (c) do not arise from
the normal business operation, of which the details are described below:

1.  In the civil case under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court,
    KASIKORNBANK Pcl., the plaintiff, prosecuted the Company, as the
    1^(st) defendant being the borrower, together with Yong Su Co., Ltd.
    and DNAL Co., Ltd., as the 2^(nd) and 3^(rd) defendants being the
    mortgagors of the assets securing the debentures of the Company, for
    the payment of the secured bonds in an amount of Baht 4,240,679,451,
    together with the interest and related expenses, resulting in the
    total amount of Baht 4,251,016,476.33. In the court’s proceeding,
    the Trial Court rendered the order to temporarily suspend the case
    of the Company in waiting for the outcome of the rehabilitation
    case; and rendered the judgment ruling that Yong Su Co., Ltd. and
    DNAL Co., Ltd. repay the debt. The judgment was later appealed and
    the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

2.  In the civil case under the jurisdiction of the Intellectual
    Property and International Trade Court, Asia Bank Pcl., the
    plaintiff, prosecuted Siam Sat Network Co., Ltd., as the 1^(st)
    defendant, Siam Media and Communication Co., Ltd., as the 2^(nd)
    defendant, Pol. Lt. Col. Ittiwat Pianlert, as the 3^(rd) defendant,
    the Company, as the 4^(th) defendant and Loxley International, as
    the 5^(th) defendant. In this case, the Company was sued as the
    guarantor of the loan for the execution of the trust receipt
    agreement of a certain company. The claimed amount in the case is
    Baht 90,303,015.96. In the court’s proceeding, the Trial Court
    rendered the order to temporarily suspend the case of the Company in
    waiting for the outcome of the rehabilitation case; and rendered the
    judgment ruling that the 1^(st) defendant, 2^(nd) defendant and
    3^(rd) defendant repay the debt. Nevertheless, in the rehabilitation
    case of the Company, the official receiver ordered that the Company
    repay the debt of the 1^(st) defendant as the Company is the
    guarantor thereof since the 1^(st) defendant currently went
    bankrupt. The Central Bankruptcy Court later approved ACAP Assets
    Management Co., Ltd.’s subrogation of the claims of Asia Bank Pcl.,
    the plaintiff.

3.  In the civil case under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Bank
    Thai Pcl., the plaintiff, prosecuted Mr. Wichet Banthuwong, as the
    1^(st) defendant being the borrower, Mr. Keree Kanjanapas, as the
    2^(nd) defendant being the guarantor, and the Company, as the 3^(rd)
    defendant being the pledgor, in a cause of action relating to the
    loan involving a promissory note, guarantee and pledge. The claimed
    amount in the case is Baht 150,536,986.30. The Trial Court rendered
    the judgment stating that the 1^(st) and 2^(nd) defendant shall
    jointly repay the debt. On 14 June 2010, the Trial Court dismissed
    the case in the part related to the 3^(rd) defendant as Thai Assets
    Management Corporation, the subrogator of the claims of BankThai
    Pcl., failed to file an application for the debt repayment in this
    case within the period specified by law. As a result, Thai Assets
    Management lost its right to receive the repayment of debt in this
    case.

4.  In the civil case under the jurisdiction of Civil Court, Mr.
    Mittakarn Sekpatan, the plaintiff, prosecuted Mr. Keeree Kanjanapas,
    as the 1^(st) defendant, Sam Pao Petch Co., Ltd, as the 2^(nd)
    defendant, and the Company as the 3^(rd) defendant, in a cause of
    action relating to the claim for damages in respect of the land
    price in an amount of Baht 436,872,351 arising out of the breach of
    the agreement to purchase and to sell the land. The Trial Court
    rendered the judgment ruling that the 2^(nd) defendant pay the debt
    in the amount of Baht 38,019,925 together with interest at the rate
    of 7.5% per annum on such principal amount commencing from 28
    November 1998 until all debts are fully repaid. The case is now
    under the consideration of the Court of Appeal.

5.  In the civil case under the jurisdiction of Civil Court, Mr. Seng
    Sing Kieng, the plaintiff, prosecuted Muang Thong Assets Co., Ltd.,
    as the 1^(st) defendant, and Group 4 Securicor Cash Services
    (Thailand) Co., Ltd., as the 2^(nd) defendant, in a cause of action
    relating to the claim for damages arising out of the plaintiff’s
    loss of property during a stay in a hotel owned by Muang Thong
    Assets Co., Ltd. in an approximate amount of Baht 6,014,250. The
    case is now under the consideration of the Trial Court.

The cases described in Clauses 1 and 2 above are cases in which the
creditors already filed applications for debt repayment in the
rehabilitation of the Company. On 14 November 2006, the Central
Bankruptcy Court ordered that the rehabilitation process of the Company
be terminated in accordance with Section 90/75 of the Bankruptcy Act
B.E. 2483 (1940) (as amended). After the order terminating the
rehabilitation process of the Company, the Company is then released from
all of its debts incurred prior to the date that the Court rendered the
order that the Company undergo rehabilitation, unless the creditors have
filed applications for debt repayment in the rehabilitation process.

Other than the abovementioned legal disputes of the company and its
subsidiaries, as the Company acquired the shares of BTSC on 4 May 2010,
BTSC then became a subsidiary of the Company. As of 31 March 2010, BTSC
had legal disputes which are pending cases or disputes that: (a) may
adversely affect the assets of BTSC or its subsidiaries; (b) may
materially affect the business operation of BTSC; or (c) do not arise
from the normal business operation of BTSC, of which the details are
described below:

1.  In the civil case under the jurisdiction of Civil Court, BTSC was
    prosecuted by Fuel Pipeline Transportation Limited, the 1^(st)
    plantiff, Dhipaya Insurance Pcl., the 2^(nd) plaintiff and Samaggi
    Insurance Pcl., the 3^(rd) plaintiff, as the 2^(nd) defendant along
    with Italian-Thai Development Pcl., the 1^(st) defendant and Thai
    Maruken Co., Ltd., the 3^(rd) defendant in a cause of action
    relating to insurance, subrogation of rights, tort and claim for
    damages. The claimed amount in this case is Baht 108,602,702. All
    three plaintiffs claimed debts in the case by filing applications
    for debt repayment in the rehabilitation process of BTSC. The
    Central Bankruptcy Court dismissed such applications for debt
    repayment. The case is now under the process of appeal of the
    dismissal order of the Bankruptcy Court.

2.  In the case under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative
    Court, BTSC was prosecuted by Mr. Suparatham Mongkolsawas and others
    in this case where the BMA is the 1^(st) defendant, the Governor of
    the BMA is the 2^(nd) defendant and BTSC is the 3^(rd) defendant, in
    a cause of action relating to violations of the BMA Act B.E. 2528,
    the Rehabilitation for Disabled Person Act, B.E. 2534 (1991) and
    other ministerial regulations relating to the provision of elevator
    and other facilities for disabled persons. However, BTSC was
    informed that, on 15 January 2009, the judge-commissioner in this
    case provided an opinion on the issue as to whether the defendants
    were legally obliged to proceed as claimed in the complaint if, at
    the time of execution of the Concession Agreement, the ministerial
    regulation which prescribes the defendants’ obligation to provide
    elevator and facilities to the disabled persons did not yet exist.
    Accordingly, the Central Administrative Court rendered the order to
    dismiss the case. The case is now under the process of appeal of the
    dismissal order of the Central Administrative Court to the Supreme
    Administrative Court.

3.  In the case under the jurisdiction of the Central Bankruptcy Court
    (in an affiliated rehabilitation case), the BMA submitted to the
    official receiver an application for debt repayment in the
    rehabilitation process of BTSC. The official receiver made an order
    allowing the BMA to receive debt repayment in the rehabilitation
    process as the debt ranked No. 5 regarding the consideration for the
    use of the government real property, in the amount of Baht
    8,330,667; and as the debt ranked No. 4 regarding the fee for the
    letter of guarantee in the amount of Baht 12,296,700, on the
    condition that the BMA shall be entitled to receive payment of debts
    only when the BMA has paid to Krung Thai Bank Public Company Limited
    the same amount (but not exceeding the guarantee limit). The
    official receiver dismissed the BMA’s application for the debt
    repayment in respect of the debt ranked Nos. 1 – 3 regarding the
    land and property taxes in an amount of Baht 72,352,502.02 and the
    debt ranked No. 5 regarding building rental in the amount of Baht
    201,440,705.60. Later, the BMA filed an objection to the official
    receiver’s order to the Central Bankruptcy Court. BTSC filed an
    objection to the objection filed by the BMA. The case is now under
    the consideration of the Central Bankruptcy Court and the Court
    rescheduled the hearing date on 5 October 2010.

According to Section 90/75 of the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (as amended),
upon the Bankruptcy Court’s order to terminate the rehabilitation, the
Company is released from any debts incurred prior to the date on which
the Bankruptcy Court rendered the order that the Company shall undergo
the rehabilitation process (7 July 2006), except for debts for which
creditors have applied for the debt repayment under the rehabilitation.