. Her action was deemed failure to perform duty with responsibility, due care, and loyalty for the best interest of the company, which was a violation of Section 89/7 of the SEA. This case is under
authorized director, causing the company to suffer losses. His action was deemed failure to perform duty with responsibility, due care, and loyalty for the best interest of the company, which was a violation
an SECC Holding’s director and executive with responsibility and due care by attending the Board of Directors’ meeting in which the fictitious loans worth Baht 245 million agenda was approved and
order or act duty resulting in Zipmex disseminated or certified statements that were materially misleading in regarding the trading price of digital assets, in such manner that is likely to have an impact
Act of 1992 with the following offences: (1) For her responsibility over PICNI operations in 2004 when she jointly made changes to the contracts to let bottling plants owned by her families or under her
with the following offences: (1) For his responsibility over PICNI operations in 2004 when he jointly made changes to the contracts to let bottling plants owned by his families or under his control rent
(6) Mr. Tanyapisist Saprod and (7) Miss Metta Poking jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which