New York, April 7 Billionaire Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani have asked a US court to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit filed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, arguing that the case falls outside US jurisdiction and fails to establish any wrongdoing.
In a pre-motion letter filed ahead of a planned April 30 motion seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, the Adanis, through their lawyers, said the SEC's claims regarding a 2021 bond sale by the group's renewable energy arm, Adani Green Energy Ltd (AGEL), are legally flawed on multiple grounds.
The SEC sued the Adanis in November 2024, alleging they misled investors by failing to disclose a purported bribery scheme involving Indian state officials, framing the case under US securities laws.
The Adanis argued that the court lacks personal jurisdiction, stating that neither had sufficient contacts with the US or direct involvement in the bond offering.
The $750 million bond sale was conducted outside the United States under Rule 144A and Regulation S exemptions, with securities sold to non-US underwriters and only later resold in part to qualified institutional buyers, they said.
Lawyers added that the complaint does not allege that Gautam Adani approved the issuance, attended key meetings, or directed any activity at US investors.
The filing also contends that the SEC's case is impermissibly extraterritorial, noting that the securities were not listed in the US, the issuer is Indian, and the alleged misconduct occurred entirely in India.
Citing US Supreme Court precedent, the defendants said the SEC failed to show any "domestic transaction," a requirement for applying US securities laws.
They went on to state that the SEC does not allege any investor losses, adding that the bonds matured and were fully repaid with interest in 2024.
They also disputed the underlying bribery allegations, saying there is no credible evidence supporting such claims.
The filing argues that the statements cited by the SEC—relating to ESG commitments, anti-corruption practices, and corporate reputation—amount to non-actionable "puffery," or general corporate optimism that investors cannot reasonably rely on.
It further said that the SEC failed to link either defendant to specific misleading statements or demonstrate intent to defraud.
The defendants are seeking dismissal of the case in full and said they are prepared to appear for a pre-motion conference if required.
Disclaimer: Due care and diligence have been taken in compiling and presenting news and market-related content. However, errors or omissions may arise despite such efforts.
The information provided is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any securities. Readers are advised to rely on their own assessment and judgment and consult appropriate financial advisers, if required, before taking any investment-related decisions.