[25] From the minutes and the correspondence tendered as exhibits, it is clear that the 2nd respondent had been threatened by the bank in respect of the banking facilities already given to the Company. The Board was also informed that the HSBC was willing to continue the banking facilities on condition that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner provide additional security. As can be seen the 2nd respondent was willing to provide the additional security and also agreed on the request by the petitioner to indemnify the petitioner in respect of the petitioner's share of additional security and yet the petitioner was not ready to give the undertaking, on the excuse that the Chairman on behalf of the petitioner had to refer the matter to its headquarters in Taiwan. It is clear to us that the petitioner was not willing to take any risk but to enjoy all the benefits under the JV.

[26] Further down the minutes in Agenda 7 and Agenda 8 it state as follows:

AGENDA 7

AMOUNT OWING TO/FROM RELATED COMPANIES:

Ms Kat Yong briefed the Board on the amount due from related companies of which the breakdown analysis is presented in Appendix 6 of the Board Paper.

The Board noted this information and wi