.png){kind=logo}
Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani have won an early procedural step in their effort to dismiss a US Securities and Exchange Commission fraud case. A judge in the Eastern District of New York granted their request for a pre-motion conference, which allows them to press their arguments before the case moves deeper into litigation.
The defendants say the complaint should be thrown out because the court lacks jurisdiction and because the SEC has not set out actionable claims.
The court’s order gives the Adanis a chance to argue for dismissal at an early stage. Their lawyers told the court they intend to move to dismiss the SEC complaint by April 30, 2026. They also said they are ready to attend a pre-motion conference if the judge decides to schedule one.
This step does not end the case. However, it gives the defense a formal opening to challenge the complaint before discovery and trial. The hearing could shape the next phase of the case and determine whether the SEC’s claims move forward.
The defense filing says the complaint fails on several legal grounds. It argues that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani, that the SEC’s claims reach beyond US law, and that the statements cited in the complaint are too vague to support a fraud claim.
The Adanis argue that the case has no proper US jurisdictional basis. Their filing says neither man had sufficient contact with the United States, and neither had direct involvement in the bond offering at the center of the SEC case. The lawyers also say the complaint does not show that Gautam Adani approved the issuance, attended key meetings, or directed activity at US investors.
Their filing also focuses on the structure of the 2021 bond sale. According to the defense, Adani Green Energy, which is not a US registrant, conducted the $750 million offering under Rule 144A and Regulation S exemptions. The filing says the notes were sold outside the United States to non-US underwriters, and only a portion was later resold to qualified institutional buyers.
The defense says those later resales do not create the kind of domestic transaction required under US securities law. It argues that the issuer is Indian, the securities were not listed on a US exchange, and the alleged conduct took place in India. On this basis, the Adanis say the SEC’s case is “conclusively beyond the reach of the US securities laws.”
The SEC sued Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani in November 2024. The regulator alleged that they were involved in a bribery scheme tied to Indian solar energy contracts and that Adani Green’s 2021 bond offering documents included false or misleading statements about anti-bribery and compliance controls. The SEC said the offering raised $750 million, including about $175 million from US investors.
In response, the Adanis say there is “no credible evidence” supporting the alleged bribery scheme. Their filing adds that the SEC does not allege investor losses and says the bonds matured with principal and interest repaid in full in 2024. The defense also argues that the statements cited by the SEC about ESG standards, anti-corruption practices, and corporate reputation amount to “puffery” rather than specific claims investors could rely on.
The filing also says the SEC has failed to tie either defendant to specific misleading statements or show the required intent to defraud. The regulator’s complaint, however, seeks civil remedies based on alleged securities fraud tied to the 2021 offering and on claims that the offering materials misrepresented Adani Green’s anti-bribery controls.
