Adani Seeks Dismissal of US SEC Fraud Suit, Calls It Legally Flawed

Billionaire Gautam Adani has filed a motion seeking the dismissal of a securities fraud lawsuit brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Adani and his nephew argue the case represents an impermissible extraterritorial application of US law, as the bond offering involved Indian entities and occurred outside the United States. They contend the court lacks personal jurisdiction and that the SEC's claims fail to establish any actionable legal violation. The defense also states the alleged misleading statements amount to non-actionable corporate optimism.

Key Points: Adani Moves to Dismiss US SEC Fraud Lawsuit Over Jurisdiction

  • Case outside US jurisdiction
  • No personal jurisdiction established
  • Alleged misconduct occurred in India
  • Bonds were not US-listed
3 min read

Legally flawed, outside US jurisdiction: Adani tells judge to dismiss SEC fraud suit

Gautam Adani argues the SEC's securities fraud case is outside US jurisdiction and legally flawed, seeking full dismissal in New York court.

"legally flawed on multiple grounds - Adani's pre-motion letter"

New York, April 8

Emphasising that the lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against him falls outside the US jurisdiction and fails to establish any wrongdoing, billionaire industrialist Gautam Adani has moved a US court seeking dismissal of the securities fraud lawsuit.

Arguing that the case represents an impermissible extraterritorial application of US law and fails for lack of personal jurisdiction, Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani have asked a court in the US to dismiss the lawsuit.

The defendants are seeking dismissal of the case in full and said they are prepared to appear for a pre-motion conference if required. Denying all allegations, they, through their lawyers, filed a pre-motion letter ahead of a planned April 30 motion to dismiss in the Eastern District Court of New York.

Adani said in a pre-motion letter that the SEC's claims over a 2021 bond sale by the group's renewable energy arm, Adani Green Energy Ltd (AGEL), are "legally flawed" on multiple grounds.

They argued that the court lacks personal jurisdiction, saying neither had sufficient contacts with the US or direct involvement in the bond offering.

The filing contended that the SEC's case is impermissibly extraterritorial, noting the securities were not listed in the US, the issuer is Indian, and the alleged misconduct occurred entirely in India.

In September 2021, AGEL conducted a $750 million bond offering pursuant to SEC Rule 144A and SEC Regulation S, which are registration exemptions for private resales to qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) and non-US sales.

AGEL sold these bonds outside the US through an agreement to non-US underwriters, who then resold the Notes to QIBs. A fraction of those resales is alleged to have been made to "investors in the United States".

AGEL was not a party to these transactions, the lawyers said in a letter.

The grounds for dismissal also include the SEC's failure to state a claim on the basis that the defendants are neither based in the US nor conduct activities there that would grant the court jurisdiction and the alleged actions involve non-US entities outside the scope of US law.

Even if the claims are accepted at face value, the complaint fails to establish any actionable legal violation or meet the threshold required to proceed. The cited statements are neither materially false nor misleading and with no direct involvement in the offering, the defendants cannot be held liable, according to the letter.

Lawyers also stated the SEC complaint does not allege that Gautam Adani approved the issuance, attended key meetings, or directed any activity at US investors.

Citing US Supreme Court precedent, the defendants said the SEC failed to show any "domestic transaction", a requirement for applying US securities laws.

The filing argues that 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.

The SEC has also failed to tie Sagar Adani to a single allegedly false or misleading statement, much less one directed at US investors, the letter pointed out.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
As someone who follows international finance, the jurisdictional question is key. The Supreme Court precedent they cite is important. The SEC needs to prove a "domestic transaction" to apply US law, and it looks shaky here.
P
Priyanka N
Honestly, this feels like another attempt to target a successful Indian conglomerate. The allegations about "puffery" in ESG statements are something every big corporation does. The case should be handled by Indian regulators, not the SEC. 🇮🇳
R
Rahul R
While I support Indian businesses standing their ground, we must also ensure our corporate giants maintain impeccable transparency. If there's no wrongdoing, the truth will come out. But this legal fight is necessary to set the boundary of US jurisdiction.
A
Aman W
The point about Sagar Adani not being tied to any statement is crucial. You can't just sue a prominent name because he's a nephew. The SEC's case looks weak on specifics. Hope the court sees through this.
K
Karthik V
This is a classic case of legal haza (harassment). Foreign agencies think they can bully Indian companies. Good on Adani for fighting back with solid legal reasoning. The dismissal motion should be granted.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50