HDFC Bank Concludes Legal Review on Atanu Chakraborty's Resignation Statement: Findings Suggest Lack of Substantiation

HDFC Bank Concludes Legal Review on Atanu Chakraborty's Resignation Statement: Findings Suggest Lack of Substantiation​

HDFC Bank Limited has announced the conclusion of a legal review concerning the statement made by Mr. Atanu Chakraborty in his resignation letter. The review was conducted by external law firms, and their findings indicate that Mr. Chakraborty’s concerns were not substantiated by internal records or witness interviews.

The bank had previously initiated this legal review on March 24, 2026. The objective of the review was to evaluate whether any concern was evident in the statement made by Mr. Atanu Chakraborty regarding his resignation, and if he recorded any dissent, and whether that dissent was addressed.

Scope and Methodology of the Review​

The legal review was conducted by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. and Wadia Ghandy & Co., referred to collectively as the External Law Firms.

The terms of reference established a relevant timeframe spanning two years preceding Mr. Chakraborty's resignation. The process involved an extensive review over a three-month period, encompassing the examination of thousands of documents and various interviews. Procedures included reviewing board meetings and agenda papers, conducting interviews, and scrutinizing additional documentation.

External Law Firms reviewed the minutes and meeting materials from the Board and relevant Committees during the defined reference time period. They also conducted individual interactions with each Independent Director, including Chairpersons of relevant Committees, as well as the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer and other senior management personnel overseeing control and assurance functions at the Bank.

Key Findings from External Law Firms​

The External Law Firms have concluded that Mr. Chakraborty's Statement and its implications were not substantiated by the record and witness interviews following a thorough and objective review of his statement, pursuant to the terms of reference.

While the Bank and the External Law Firms repeatedly requested an interview with Mr. Chakraborty as part of the legal process, such an interview ultimately did not occur.

The findings detailed by the External Law Firms included:

• Meeting Integrity: The minutes of meetings attended by Mr. Chakraborty were produced through a comprehensive drafting, review, and approval process that provided him with an opportunity to record any "happenings and practices" allegedly inconsistent with his personal values and ethics.
• Lack of Support: No contemporaneous support for Mr. Chakraborty’s statement was found in the minutes or materials reviewed from the Board or its Committees, nor in communications related to the review and approval of meetings he attended.
• Witness Accounts: Witness interviews conducted during the review did not support or substantiate his statement.
• Dubai Matter: Although Mr. Chakraborty referenced a Dubai matter in subsequent public statements after resigning, no contemporaneous evidence was identified that indicated he raised concerns regarding his personal values and ethics, or that he disagreed with any decisions made by the Board or relevant Board Committees concerning the Dubai matter (or any other matters addressed by these bodies).

In summary, the contemporary evidence reviewed was inconsistent with Mr. Chakraborty's Statement, and the External Law Firms’ review found no basis for the statement.

HDFCBANK Stock Price Movement​

On Thursday, shares of HDFC Bank Limited edged higher, closing at ₹796.30 after gaining 0.35%. The stock traded within a range of ₹794.75 to ₹804.45 and saw significant activity with nearly 46.71 million shares exchanged.