私募巨頭訴泰山石化涉嫌虛假陳述
|
????七年前，一家名叫泰山石化（Titan Petrochemical）的中國上市能源公司把位于香港國際金融中心的辦公室租了出去。辦公室對面是美國華平投資集團（Warburg Pincus）的香港辦事處。當時泰山石化正在向油料儲存市場擴張，恰好華平集團對泰山石化的新業務很感興趣。 ????兩家公司一拍即合，開始深入了解對方。最后雙方成立了一家石油存儲合資公司，泰山石化控股50.1%，華平集團控股49.9%。新公司將成為泰山石化旗下的一家子公司。華平集團向這家合資公司注入了1億美元初始資本，另外還斥資約7,500萬美元，買下了泰山石化9.9%的控股權。 ????接下來的幾年里，這家合資公司逐漸成長為中國最大的獨立石油存儲公司。就在這時，泰山石化遇到了一些問題，尤其是在原油運輸方面。泰山石化有一筆垃圾債券在2004年獲得了擔保，到了去年年底，這筆垃圾債券面臨著可能違約的境地。后來泰山石化雖然重組了大部分債務，但是仍有一大筆原定于2012年3月到期的債務無法履約（尤其是泰山石化曾計劃將旗下的泉州船廠出售給海航旗下的大新華物流，但近日大新華要求取消泉州船廠的交易，導致泰山石化更加無力償還債務。） ????一旦泰山石化出現債務違約，華平集團就會面臨一個機會。雙方當初在建立合資公司時就有規定，一旦母公司無力清償債務（這在3月19日已經發生），合資公司可進行控股權變更。一位了解情況的人士表示，隨著泰山石化的債務即將到期，華平集團開始深入調查合資公司的情況。以前華平集團對合資公司的參與一直局限在董事會水平，不過現在華平集團想要更清楚地了解公司的下層運營部門和財務部門究竟發生了什么。 ????華平集團發現的問題令人十分不安。華平集團本周對泰山石化和泰山石化的幾名高管提起訴訟，因為華平發現，它與泰山石化的合資公司向泉州船廠提供了2.32億美元（約14.8億人民幣）的貸款擔保——泉州船廠就是泰山石化沒能賣出去的那家子公司。華平相信，這筆擔保是由泰山石化時任主席蔡天真做出的，而泰山石化又故意向華平集團隱瞞了此事（包括在董事會層面）。因此華平集團狀告泰山石化涉嫌虛假陳述和違反合同。 ????這件事對華平集團的影響，遠遠超過了基本的企業治理問題，也傷害了華平的感情。 ????首先，華平集團最終已經取得了合資公司的多數控股權。不過本月初，華平決定，目前局面下唯一解決方法是進行一次由法院批準的重組。這可能迫使泰山石化進入清盤程序，而華平集團自己恰好也是一個債權人。不過眼下更可能的是引入新的股東和債務投資人。可問題是高達2.32億美元的爭議貸款擔保導致華平很難找新的債務投資人——至少是很難在合適的價位上找到債務投資人。而且持續發酵的糾紛本身也可能導致根本沒人愿意接手這塊燙手山芋。 ????需要說明的是，這筆錢屬于不確定性債務。目前并沒有人要求合資公司必須償付這筆錢。實際受到影響的不過是合資公司的信用以及它的重組能力。 ????即便法院宣判華平集團勝訴，也并不一定意味著華平能從對合資公司的初始投資中獲得利益。事實上，如果合資公司在未來幾個月內重組、新的投資者攫取了華平在合資公司中的全部股份的話，那么華平集團幾乎一定會賠錢。不過如果合資公司的確重組了，而且華平保持了至少一部分股權，那么華平至少還有盈利的可能。 ????另外華平對泰山石化本身也進行了一些投資，至于這部分投資，華平集團已經售出了其中的半數股權，另外還有一家中國企業表示有意收購華平在泰山石化的剩余股份。《財富》雜志（Fortune）目前暫時無法得知這兩次股權出售究竟會讓華平對泰山石化的總體投資以盈利、還是虧損告終。 ????泰山石化目前仍未對華平集團的起訴做出回應，而且還對路透社（Reuters）表示，在正式應訴并研究華平的訴狀之前，不會對此事做出公開評論。 ????譯者：樸成奎 |
????Seven years ago, a listed Chinese energy company called Titan Petrochemical leased out Hong Kong office space in the landmark Two International Finance Centre. Across the hall was the local office of global private equity firm Warburg Pincus, which had become interested in Titan's recent expansion into the oil storage market. ????The two groups began getting to know each other better, eventually culminating in an oil storage joint venture of which Titan would hold 50.1% and Warburg Pincus would hold 49.9%. Warburg Pincus invested an initial $100 million for its stake in the JV -- which would operate as a subsidiary of Titan -- and also bought around $75 million worth of shares in the parent for a 9.9% ownership position. ????Over the next few years, the joint venture grew into China's largest independent oil storage company. But then problems began to beset the parent company, particularly in the area of crude oil shipping. By late last year, the company faced the prospect of defaulting on junk bonds that had originally been secured in 2004. Titan restructured most of the notes, but still held many with a March 2012 maturity that it couldn't meet (particularly after a planned shipyard subsidiary sale fell apart). ????Once Titan defaulted on its bonds, an opportunity arose for Warburg Pincus. It had structured the original JV with change of control warrants if the parent company became insolvent (which occurred on March 19), and a source familiar with the situation says that Warburg Pincus began digging much deeper into the JV as the bonds neared maturity. It always had been involved at the board level, but now wanted a much fuller picture of what was happening within the lower-level operating and finance units. ????What it claims to have found was disturbing, according to a lawsuit Warburg Pincus brought this week against Titan and certain Titan executives: Approximately $232 million worth of loan guarantees to Titan's flailing shipyard unit (the one it couldn't sell). It believes the guarantees were originally made by Titan's then-chairman Tsoi Tin Chun, and then intentionally shielded from being disclosed to Warburg Pincus (including in its board role). The suit claims misrepresentations and breaches of contract. ????Why this would matter for Warburg Pincus goes well beyond basic corporate governance and hurt feelings. ????The private equity firm did ultimately take majority control of the JV, but earlier this month decided that the only way forward was through a court-approved restructuring. This may take the form of a pure liquidation -- Warburg Pincus also happens to be listed as a creditor -- but more likely would involve new equity and debt investors. The problem is that the $230 million in disputed loan guarantees makes new lenders much more difficult to find, or at least much more difficult to find at generous terms. And the ongoing dispute itself may make such loans impossible to find at any price. ????To be clear, these are contingent liabilities. The joint venture has not yet been required to come up with any of the $230 million. All that is really affected is credit-worthiness and, thus, the ability to restructure. ????Even if the court agrees with Warburg Pincus, that does not necessarily mean that the firm will profit from its original JV investment. In fact, it would almost certainly lose money if the restructuring occurred within the next several months and new investors acquired all of Warburg Pincus' position. If a restructuring occurs and Warburg Pincus retains at least some stake, then there is at least the possibility of profit. ????As for its investment in the parent company, Warburg Pincus already has sold around half of its stake and a Chinese strategic has offered to buy the remainder (via a broader takeover attempt of the entire company). Fortune has not been able to learn if the stock sales and buyout offer would result in a net gain or loss for Warburg Pincus on the overall Titan investment. ????Titan has not yet responded to the charges in court, and told Reuters that it would have no public comment until it is served with, and has a chance to review, the suit. |
最新文章