七年前，一家名叫泰山石化（Titan Petrochemical）的中国上市能源公司把位于香港国际金融中心的办公室租了出去。办公室对面是美国华平投资集团（Warburg Pincus）的香港办事处。当时泰山石化正在向油料储存市场扩张，恰好华平集团对泰山石化的新业务很感兴趣。

    两家公司一拍即合，开始深入了解对方。最后双方成立了一家石油存储合资公司，泰山石化控股50.1%，华平集团控股49.9%。新公司将成为泰山石化旗下的一家子公司。华平集团向这家合资公司注入了1亿美元初始资本，另外还斥资约7,500万美元，买下了泰山石化9.9%的控股权。

    接下来的几年里，这家合资公司逐渐成长为中国最大的独立石油存储公司。就在这时，泰山石化遇到了一些问题，尤其是在原油运输方面。泰山石化有一笔垃圾债券在2004年获得了担保，到了去年年底，这笔垃圾债券面临着可能违约的境地。后来泰山石化虽然重组了大部分债务，但是仍有一大笔原定于2012年3月到期的债务无法履约（尤其是泰山石化曾计划将旗下的泉州船厂出售给海航旗下的大新华物流，但近日大新华要求取消泉州船厂的交易，导致泰山石化更加无力偿还债务。）

    一旦泰山石化出现债务违约，华平集团就会面临一个机会。双方当初在建立合资公司时就有规定，一旦母公司无力清偿债务（这在3月19日已经发生），合资公司可进行控股权变更。一位了解情况的人士表示，随着泰山石化的债务即将到期，华平集团开始深入调查合资公司的情况。以前华平集团对合资公司的参与一直局限在董事会水平，不过现在华平集团想要更清楚地了解公司的下层运营部门和财务部门究竟发生了什么。

    华平集团发现的问题令人十分不安。华平集团本周对泰山石化和泰山石化的几名高管提起诉讼，因为华平发现，它与泰山石化的合资公司向泉州船厂提供了2.32亿美元（约14.8亿人民币）的贷款担保——泉州船厂就是泰山石化没能卖出去的那家子公司。华平相信，这笔担保是由泰山石化时任主席蔡天真做出的，而泰山石化又故意向华平集团隐瞒了此事（包括在董事会层面）。因此华平集团状告泰山石化涉嫌虚假陈述和违反合同。

    这件事对华平集团的影响，远远超过了基本的企业治理问题，也伤害了华平的感情。

    首先，华平集团最终已经取得了合资公司的多数控股权。不过本月初，华平决定，目前局面下唯一解决方法是进行一次由法院批准的重组。这可能迫使泰山石化进入清盘程序，而华平集团自己恰好也是一个债权人。不过眼下更可能的是引入新的股东和债务投资人。可问题是高达2.32亿美元的争议贷款担保导致华平很难找新的债务投资人——至少是很难在合适的价位上找到债务投资人。而且持续发酵的纠纷本身也可能导致根本没人愿意接手这块烫手山芋。

    需要说明的是，这笔钱属于不确定性债务。目前并没有人要求合资公司必须偿付这笔钱。实际受到影响的不过是合资公司的信用以及它的重组能力。

    即便法院宣判华平集团胜诉，也并不一定意味着华平能从对合资公司的初始投资中获得利益。事实上，如果合资公司在未来几个月内重组、新的投资者攫取了华平在合资公司中的全部股份的话，那么华平集团几乎一定会赔钱。不过如果合资公司的确重组了，而且华平保持了至少一部分股权，那么华平至少还有盈利的可能。

    另外华平对泰山石化本身也进行了一些投资，至于这部分投资，华平集团已经售出了其中的半数股权，另外还有一家中国企业表示有意收购华平在泰山石化的剩余股份。《财富》杂志（Fortune）目前暂时无法得知这两次股权出售究竟会让华平对泰山石化的总体投资以盈利、还是亏损告终。

    泰山石化目前仍未对华平集团的起诉做出回应，而且还对路透社（Reuters）表示，在正式应诉并研究华平的诉状之前，不会对此事做出公开评论。

    译者：朴成奎

    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.