Selected Engagements

Case Studies

Six recent mandates across petrochemicals, mining, ICT, capital markets, renewables, and consumer goods. Anonymised by request, verifiable under NDA.

Iran Khodro automotive manufacturing facility

Operational mandates across Iranian industry

PetrochemicalsEuropean specialty chemicals group

Capital

€85M

Timeline

11 weeks to operations

Outcome

Target IRR 24%

Challenge

Client needed wholly-owned downstream production presence in Iran for ME distribution, but was blocked by sanctions-compliance concerns and free-zone selection ambiguity.

Strategy

  • ›Free-zone comparison memo (Aras vs. Mahshahr vs. PSEEZ)
  • ›FIPPA application with full repatriation rights
  • ›Wholly-owned PJSC structure with DIFC holding above
  • ›Sanctions screening of 47 counterparties and suppliers

Outcome

Operational subsidiary in PSEEZ within 11 weeks. First production shipment in month 5. Year-1 capex came in 8% under budget.

Mining & MetalsUAE family office

Capital

USD 40M

Timeline

6 months to closing

Outcome

Realised 31% (Year 2)

Challenge

Family office wanted minority stake in an Iranian copper concentrate producer but needed full operational due diligence plus structured exit rights.

Strategy

  • ›Sector report covering 14 comparable assets
  • ›Site visits to Kerman province operations
  • ›Negotiated 26% minority stake with tag-along & put rights
  • ›DIFC SPV with Iranian holding subsidiary

Outcome

Deal closed at USD 38.5M (8% below initial ask). Asset revalued upward by 47% over 24 months. Quarterly distributions in USD via NIMA.

Technology & DigitalKorean industrial group

Capital

USD 22M Phase 1

Timeline

14 weeks to JV signing

Outcome

Strategic — no IRR target

Challenge

Korean parent wanted 50/50 fintech JV with established Iranian distributor but lacked clarity on Iranian banking-license requirements and IP protection.

Strategy

  • ›JV partner shortlist (8 candidates, 3 final)
  • ›Central Bank of Iran licensing roadmap
  • ›IP escrow structure under DIFC law
  • ›Two-tier governance with parent veto rights

Outcome

JV signed, Phase 1 capital deployed. Product launched in 3 Iranian cities within 8 months. Phase 2 (USD 35M) approved by Korean board.

Capital MarketsSingapore-based EM fund

Capital

USD 18M initial allocation

Timeline

5 weeks to first trade

Outcome

+27% (Year 1, USD)

Challenge

EM fund manager wanted direct Tehran Stock Exchange exposure but had never operated through CSDI, NIMA, or an Iranian broker.

Strategy

  • ›Trading code application (issued in 28 days)
  • ›Broker selection memo (3 finalists)
  • ›IRR settlement account at first-tier Iranian bank
  • ›Quarterly USD reporting vs. TEDPIX & MSCI EM

Outcome

First trade executed in week 5. Portfolio expanded to USD 31M by month 18. Repatriated profits via NIMA without delay.

Renewable EnergyGerman midcap solar developer

Capital

€42M project finance

Timeline

9 months to commissioning

Outcome

Project IRR 18.5%

Challenge

Developer had a PPA shortlist but needed land allocation, grid-connection guarantees, and ECA-compatible financing for a 70MW utility-scale solar project.

Strategy

  • ›Land allocation in Yazd province via Ministry of Energy
  • ›20-year PPA negotiated with SATBA
  • ›ECA structure via Hermes + commercial tranche
  • ›EPC contractor selection and oversight

Outcome

Plant commissioned on schedule. First-year generation exceeded P50 forecast by 6%. Refinancing initiated in Year 2 at improved terms.

Consumer & RetailTurkish consumer goods exporter

Capital

Wholly-owned subsidiary

Timeline

8 weeks to registration, 5 months to ops

Outcome

+38% revenue YoY post-launch

Challenge

Three prior advisors had failed to register the client's Iranian subsidiary over four years due to documentation gaps.

Strategy

  • ›Re-papered all founder documents to Iranian standard
  • ›Direct liaison with Tehran company registry
  • ›Bilingual operating manual (Farsi + Turkish)
  • ›Local distributor agreement template

Outcome

Subsidiary registered in 8 weeks. Operational with 14 staff within 5 months. Revenue trajectory beat parent forecast by 38% in Year 1.

Discuss a similar mandate
What our case studies share

Real engagements, anonymised — verifiable on request

Every case study on this page corresponds to a real, recently concluded mandate. We anonymise client identity for compliance reasons, but timeline, capital range, and outcome are reported as-is.

Verifiable

Each case can be substantiated under NDA. Qualified prospects can request a reference call with the actual client.

Net of fees

IRRs reported are net of all advisory and transaction costs. Capital figures are deployed capital, not committed.

Reproducible

These are not one-off outliers. Each represents a repeatable engagement type we can replicate for similar clients.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Can I see the unredacted version?+

Yes, after a mutual NDA. We share the full deal memo, including counterparty names, advisor team, and post-close performance updates.

How do you choose which cases to publish?+

We publish the case once it is operational and the client has approved the anonymised version. We rotate the set every 6 months to keep it current.

What if my situation is different from any case shown?+

These six cases represent our most common engagement patterns, but we have closed over 142 active mandates across 38 sectors. Tell us your scenario — we likely have a closer precedent.

Discuss your case
Reading These Cases

How to read an entry case study without over-reading it

Case studies are useful for understanding sequence and failure modes, not for predicting your own timeline or cost. Two projects in the same sector can diverge by months because of a single sector permit, a counterparty screening result, or a change in banking channel. The cases below are anonymised at client request and generalised where a detail would identify the party.

Entry routes compared on the dimensions that actually differ

Entry routes compared on the dimensions that actually differ
Entry routeTypical setup timeBest suited to
Free-zone company4–10 weeksTrading, assembly, re-export and pilot operations
Mainland LLC6–12 weeksLocal sales, services and domestic-market operations
FIPPA-licensed investment3–6 monthsCapital-intensive projects needing transfer guarantees
Joint venture with local partner3–8 monthsSectors where a local licence or network is decisive
Branch or representative office6–14 weeksMarket presence without a local trading entity

Indicative planning benchmarks based on our engagement experience; actual timelines vary by sector and file.

The failure modes that recur across mandates

  • Capital brought in without inbound registration, making later repatriation difficult
  • Choosing a corporate form for speed and having to restructure once real operations begin
  • Counterparty diligence run on the trading name only, missing the beneficial owner
  • Assuming a free-zone licence permits unrestricted mainland sales
  • Contract signed in English only, where the Persian version governs for filing purposes
  • Underestimating the time to open and operate a workable banking channel

Frequently asked questions

Why are your case studies anonymised?

Clients ask for it. Naming an investor in Iran can affect their banking, insurance and counterparty relationships elsewhere, so we generalise identifying details and provide named references privately instead.

Which entry route is fastest?

A free-zone company is normally the quickest to stand up, often within four to ten weeks, but it is only the right answer if your operations fit the zone’s licence scope. Mainland sales usually require a mainland entity.

What is the single most common expensive mistake?

Bringing capital in without registering it. Registration at the point of inflow — under FIPPA where applicable — is what preserves the documented right to transfer principal and profit out later.