of contract against the Company. The Company’ s lawyer suggested that the Company had not breached the above memorandum, and the Company’ s management concurred that the case would be ruled in the

expenses incurred from the subsidiary’s share acquisition ie. loan , advisory and lawyer fees for an aggregated amount of THB 2.3 million. Earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation (“EBITDA”) EBITDA

Company. The Company’ s lawyer suggested that the Company had not breached the above memorandum, and the Company’ s management concurred that the case would be ruled in the favour of the Company

memorandum for the exclusive mobile phone project. The Company’s lawyer suggested that the Company hadn’t breached the above memorandum, and the Company’ s management concurred that the case would be ruled in

lawyer suggested that the Company had not breached the above memorandum, and the Company’s management concurred that the case would be ruled in the favour of the Company. Consequencely, the Company has not

legal principle; 2. Collecting evidence related to the claims for compensation or the rights under the Securities and Exchange Act; 3. Contacting a lawyer to make necessary preparations before filing a

million, including the interest, on the ground of the breach of contract against the Company. The Company’ s lawyer suggested that the Company had not breached the above memorandum, and the Company’ s

and Exchange Act; 3. Contacting a lawyer to make necessary preparations before filing a lawsuit. For example, in case of damage resulting from a breach of contract, compliance with the agreements

contacted for negotiation but there was no any conclusion. On January 25, 2017, the Legal Department sent out the second letter of payment request and prepared a set of documents to lawyer for prosecution if

out the second letter of payment request and prepared a set of documents to lawyer for prosecution if the debt negotiation was failed. On February 22, 2017, MAT contacted the Company to request time for