The Concern
A real estate investor was preparing to commit significant capital to a joint venture with a local developer for a new residential project. Read More
What We Did
Reviewed the developer’s full project history, including ongoing and stalled developments that weren’t in its presentations. Read More
What We Found
Two of the developer’s earlier projects had stalled for over two years, with possession deadlines repeatedly pushed back. Read More
The Outcome
The investor got a clear, evidence-backed picture of the developer’s track record and risk exposure before signing. Read More
The Concern
A real estate investor was preparing to commit significant capital to a joint venture with a local developer for a new residential project. On paper, the partnership looked strong. The developer held a well-located land parcel, had a portfolio of completed projects and came recommended by people the investor trusted. Commercial discussions had moved quickly, and the term sheet was close to final.
Still, the investor knew that in real estate joint ventures, the partner’s track record matters as much as the land. Project delays, diverted funds and regulatory disputes at a partner’s other developments can quickly spill into a shared venture, putting capital, timelines and reputation at risk. The developer’s own presentations focused on completed projects and said little about anything still in progress or under dispute.
The investor also wanted to handle this carefully. Openly questioning the developer’s credibility risked straining the relationship before the deal was signed. Relying only on references and what the developer chose to disclose would leave important questions unanswered. The investor needed an independent, discreet assessment of who it was really partnering with before committing.
What We Did
- Reviewed the developer’s full project history, including ongoing and stalled developments that weren’t in its presentations
- Examined regulatory filings and project registrations to check promised timelines against actual progress and spot any compliance issues
- Ran litigation and dispute searches on the developer, its promoters and its related entities to assess legal exposure
- Mapped the corporate structure and related-party network to understand how funds moved between the developer’s companies and projects
- Conducted discreet market and reputation enquiries with industry sources, and documented every finding in a structured risk report
What We Found
- Two of the developer’s earlier projects had stalled for over two years, with possession deadlines repeatedly pushed back
- There were multiple unresolved homebuyer complaints and legal cases over delayed delivery and refunds
- Funds from earlier projects had been moved to related entities, raising concerns about money being diverted between developments
- The developer’s promoters held interests in several companies not disclosed during the deal discussions
- Market reputation was mixed, and contractors and suppliers reported delays in payment
The Outcome
- The investor got a clear, evidence-backed picture of the developer’s track record and risk exposure before signing
- The investor paused the deal and reopened negotiations based on the findings
- Deal terms were restructured with an escrow-controlled project account, milestone-linked fund releases and stronger governance rights
- Protective clauses were added on related-party transactions and reporting of fund use
- The investor avoided committing capital on terms that would have left it exposed to the developer’s wider risks