the day of appointment, the defendant did not show up to court and did not file a lawsuit to resolve the case. The Company testified our only side of argument and the hearing was to be decided on the
dispose the subsidiary’s machines for debt repayment to the debenture creditor. Furthermore, the subsidiary company was sued as the defendant in black case no. Por 1430/2561 to Samut Sakhon Province Court
considered to dispose the subsidiary’s machines for debt repayment to the debenture creditor. Enclosure Furthermore, the subsidiary company was sued as the defendant in black case no. Por. 1430/2561 to Samut
on July 15, 2016. The plaintiff and the defendant have been examined by the court hearing to hear the judgment dated November 27, 2560. The rest 3 cases are the criminal lawsuit against the debtor
Province Court, and the company was called as a co-defendant. Later, on 27 May 2019, entered into a compromise agreement, which the court has ordered according to the aforementioned compromise agreement, as
company was sued as black case no. Por 1430/2561 to Samut Sakhon Province Court, and the company was called as a co-defendant. Later, on 27 May 2019, entered into a compromise agreement, which the court has
Commission No. OrNor. 7/2547 Re: Arbitral Process (No. 3) dated 13 October 2004. Clause 3. In this Notification: “respondent” means any of the followings: (1) a securities company; (2) a local share selling
: Arbitral Process (No. 3) dated 13 October 2004. Clause 3. In this Notification: “respondent” means any of the followings: (1) a securities company; (2) a local share selling agent; (3) a mutual fund
(No. 3) dated 13 October 2004. Clause 3. In this Notification: “respondent” means any of the followings: (1) a securities company; (2) a local share selling agent; (3) a mutual fund supervisor; (4) a