We were approached on a deal in which three high-risk zones converged at once: a large plot of land, a cross-border ownership structure and a logistics facility that still had to be built. The site was an international industrial park of the cross-border type (a joint venture between two countries), where a special legal regime for residents overlays national land law. Here is how we supported a land deal for a Class A+ logistics center - with no company names or personal names, only the structure and the methodology.
This is an anonymized case. We deliberately removed the brands, the specific resident and the negotiating parties. What matters is not the story of one particular team, but the underlying logic: how to assemble a deal you are not afraid to close out of a set of conflicting jurisdictions, land rights and investment expectations.
The investor was ready to commit around $120 million to a Class A+ logistics center on a plot of more than 27 hectares for a warehouse complex of about 140,000 sq m. But the right to land in an international park is not a matter of "buy it and own it": the land-use regime, the resident status and the cross-border ownership perimeter created an uncertainty in which neither the bank nor the investor understood exactly what they were financing.
The starting point
At the outset the project had a strong economic idea and a weak legal framework. Logistics demand was confirmed: the park's transit location, the customs preferences for residents, the proximity to major freight corridors. The land-rights and corporate side, however, existed as intentions rather than documents. The main gaps:
- the right to the plot - under the industrial park's land-use regime, with no clear answer on what passes to the investor and on what terms;
- the ownership structure - cross-border, involving parties from different jurisdictions, with no verified chain of control;
- the resident's investment commitments (volume of investment, timelines, jobs) were not tied to the right to land;
- the logistics facility - at the concept stage: Class A+ was declared, but without linking the warehouse parameters to the parameters of the plot;
- the tax and currency perimeter of the cross-border financing had not been calculated.
In industrial parks with an international regime, land is rarely sold "into ownership" in the classic sense. More often it is a right of use tied to the resident's status and its investment commitments. The buyer pays not for the plot, but for a package of "land + status + incentives + commitments" - and each element is verified separately.
The scale of the project in figures
To appreciate the weight of the deal, let us fix the key parameters. This is not marketing - these are the figures around which the entire due diligence and negotiating position were built.
At this scale, any uncertainty in the rights to land is not a legal quibble but a direct risk to a multi-million-dollar investment. If two years on it turns out that the right to use the plot is revoked when investment conditions are not met, an already-built facility is thrown into question.
Three layers of complexity
We broke the deal down into three independent layers and checked each one separately before bringing them together. Mixing them into a single "general review" is a guaranteed way to miss something.
Layer 1. Land and the park regime
The first thing we established: what exactly the buyer receives on the plot. In international industrial parks, land is usually granted to a resident on a right of use tied to an investment agreement. We checked the boundaries and area of the plot, its intended use, the permitted number of floors and load, the utility provision, and the conditions under which the right to land may be revised or revoked.
Layer 2. Cross-border ownership
The second layer is who stands behind the deal and how the chain of control is arranged. When the parties come from different jurisdictions, you need to see the ultimate beneficial owners, understand which legal entities the financing passes through, and check whether there are any sanctions, currency or tax restrictions that would make payments impossible or uneconomical.
Layer 3. The logistics facility
The third layer is the warehouse itself. Class A+ is not a slogan but a set of parameters: ceiling height, column spacing, floor load, number of dock doors, fire-safety systems. We verified whether the declared 140,000 sq m fit on the plot of more than 27 hectares, allowing for access lanes, heavy-truck parking and maneuvering zones, and whether these parameters were consistent with the land-use regime.
How we ran the deal: four stages
We structured the support sequentially. First due diligence, then structuring, and only then negotiation and closing. You cannot skip stages in a cross-border land deal: each subsequent stage relies on the conclusions of the previous one.
Verification of the rights to the plot, the park's land-use regime, the resident's investment commitments and the ownership chain. The goal is to understand precisely what passes to the investor and under what conditions that right is stable.
Choosing the ownership layer through which financing flows, linking the right to land with the investment commitments and the investment schedule, and working through the tax and currency regime for cross-border payments.
Negotiations on price, timelines, guarantees and the parties' liability. Locking in mechanisms to protect the investor in case the park regime is revised or counter-obligations are not met.
Assembling the final package: the land agreement, the corporate ownership framework, the investment commitments and the facility parameters in a single logic that the bank can verify.
The deal's risk map
Before structuring, we plotted the risks on a "likelihood x impact" matrix. This disciplines the negotiations: instead of "everything is scary," a priority emerges - what to address first and what can be closed with a standard clause.
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | What we did |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revision of the right to land under the park regime | Medium | Critical | Tied it to investment conditions, added protective clauses |
| Break in the cross-border payment chain | Medium | High | Checked jurisdictions, the currency and sanctions perimeter |
| Mismatch between warehouse and plot parameters | Low | High | Verified Class A+ against the area and land-use regime |
| Failure to meet the jobs commitments | Low | Medium | Built in a schedule and the parties' liability |
| Tax reclassification of the financing | Low | High | Calculated the tax regime before signing |
In a cross-border land deal the investor finances neither the plot nor the warehouse in isolation, but the bundle "land - status - commitments." If these elements are not stitched into a single document with a clear logic, the bank sees three different risks and finances none of them.
What changed after structuring
Let us compare how the deal looked at the outset and the stage to which we brought it, fit for financing. The project's figures did not change in the process - what changed was its verifiability and stability.
| Parameter | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Right to land | Intention, regime unclear | Verified, tied to commitments |
| Ownership structure | Cross-border, no chain | Transparent chain of control |
| Facility parameters | "Class A+" declaratively | Verified against plot and regime |
| Taxes and payments | Not calculated | Regime fixed before the deal |
| Readiness for financing | Low | Package the bank can verify |
A large deal fails not because of poor economics but because of unverified rights. First we make sure the land and ownership are stable, and only then do we calculate the returns.- G-Invest's support principle
Lessons from the case
This project is a good example of how, in cross-border land deals, the cost of a mistake is measured not in percentage points but in millions and years. The key takeaways:
- in an international industrial park, land is a package of "right of use + resident status + investment commitments," not ordinary ownership;
- the cross-border ownership structure is checked separately from the land - down to the ultimate beneficial owners and the currency-and-sanctions perimeter;
- Class A+ logistics parameters must be verified against the plot and the land-use regime, not merely declared;
- the stability of the right to land is the critical risk around which the entire investor protection is built;
- what closes a deal is not a polished presentation but a single document package the bank can verify.
Frequently asked questions
Why can't land in an industrial park simply be bought into ownership?
In international parks with a special regime, land is more often granted to a resident on a right of use tied to an investment agreement. The buyer receives not "bare" ownership but a package of rights and obligations, and what needs checking is precisely the conditions for the stability of that right.
What is the main difficulty of a cross-border structure?
The fact that financing and ownership flow through different jurisdictions. You need to see the ultimate beneficial owners, check the currency, tax and sanctions perimeter, and make sure the payments are technically and legally enforceable across the whole horizon of the project.
What does a Class A+ logistics center mean?
It is the top class of warehouse real estate: high ceilings, optimal column spacing, high floor load, a sufficient number of dock doors, modern engineering and fire-safety systems. These parameters must fit on the plot and comply with the land-use regime.
Can such a deal be run without full due diligence?
Technically yes, in practice no. With investment of around $120 million, an unverified right to land or a break in the ownership chain can render an already-built facility worthless. Due diligence is cheaper than any of these scenarios.
We will support your cross-border or land deal
G-Invest conducts legal and land due diligence, structures ownership and financing and assembles a package that passes review by the bank and the investor - from industrial parks to logistics and production sites.