Ann: Conclusion of Negotiations and Settlement with Thai Vendor, page-32

The more I think about it, the more I like this outcome. I am not really sure what everyone expected to happen here.

The previous management's strategy was to pursue the Singapore arbitration where they believed they had a high (but not guaranteed) probability of getting a favorable result - which they defined best case as canceling the vendors payment and shares. They then wanted to spend +US$1MM/yr to appeal an arbitration decision they lost in Cambodia, which they said was going to take several years with unknown odds of success (keep in mind they lost the initial ruling).

There was never an outcome under the previous management's strategy where the vendor was going to stop competing against them, close the new casinos he opened and disappear. Or where the Vendor made a cash payment to DNA.

Instead ASM split the difference with the vendor in the Singapore arbitration (maybe ASM thought the real odds of winning were 50%/50%) and in exchange for the legal fees they were going to spend appealing the lost Cambodia decision guaranteed themselves a favorable outcome.

If you weight these items probabilisticly, this was a pretty good outcome. This was the best case outcome in Cambodia. In Singapore they split the difference, which I am slightly disappointed by, but as outsiders do we really know what the odds of them winning were? Additionally, this company needed to make peace with Somboon or else the games were never going to end.

The only outcome that would have been better is if they also canceled the vendors shares, but that would have assumed a 100% probability of them winning Singapore and Cambodia, which was clearly not a given and would have taken two more year.