account for Sippakorn to send trading orders, facilitated respective payments for the provided account, and used such client's account for his own securities trading. Furthermore, he ordered a subordinate

สารสนเทศข่าว มติ BOD 5-60 Final 20171126 En No. NDR013/2017 Subject Resolution of the Board of Directors’ Meeting To President The Stock Exchange of Thailand Enclosure 1. Information Memorandum on 2. Information Memorandum regarding the offering of the newly issued ordinary shares to specific investors (Private Placement) 3. Capital Increase Report Form (F53 N.D. Rubber Public Company Limited (“ No.5/2017 held on November26, 2017 which has the material resolutions as follows 1. Approved to propo...

Market Supervisory Board or the SEC Office, nor having corrected the financial status or the operating result as ordered by the said authorities. 4.8 Having not been ordered by the SEC Office to amend the

. Interest expenses of debentures for the year 2018 were Baht 77.40 million. 3.6 On March 28, 2017 the Central Bankruptcy Court ordered Saraburi Coal Company Limited (“Saraburi”) into final receivership. The

Baht 1,720.1 million. Interest expenses of debentures for the first quarter of 2019 were Baht 19.09 million. 3.6 On March 28, 2017 the Central Bankruptcy Court ordered Saraburi Coal Company Limited

ordered from various distributors for use in production of a large volume of products to meet the increased orders, and an increase in advance receipt of goods payment, i.e. deposit, from a new customer who

other payables, mainly the not-yet-due payables for raw materials and packaging ordered from various distributors for use in production of a large volume of products to meet the increased orders from

Baht 1,720.1 million. Interest expenses of debentures for the third quarter of 2018 were Baht 19.51 million. 3.6 On March 28, the Central Bankruptcy Court ordered Saraburi Coal Company Limited (“Saraburi

the true owner of the trading account, and adding a new contact phone number to the client's personal profile even though there was no evidence that the client had ordered the responsible investment

was no evidence that the client had ordered the responsible investment consultant to do so.    Auracha?s actions were deemed as (1) failure to perform duties or provide services honestly, (2) misconduct