Adani, Nephew Move US Court to Dismiss SEC Lawsuit, Cite Lack of Jurisdiction

New York, April 2026 : In a significant legal development, Gautam Adani, Chairman of the Adani Group, along with his nephew Sagar Adani, has approached a US court seeking dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The defendants have argued that the case falls outside US jurisdiction and does not establish any legal wrongdoing.

In a pre-motion letter submitted through their legal counsel, the Adanis requested that the case be dismissed in its entirety. They also indicated their willingness to participate in a pre-motion conference if the court deems it necessary. The filing strongly challenges the SEC’s claims related to a 2021 bond issuance by Adani Green Energy Limited (AGEL), describing them as “legally flawed” on multiple grounds.

At the core of their argument is the assertion that the US court lacks personal jurisdiction over both Gautam and Sagar Adani. According to the filing, neither individual has sufficient contacts with the United States, nor were they directly involved in the bond offering in question. The defense maintains that the transactions were conducted outside the US and primarily involved non-US entities.

The Adanis have also argued that the SEC’s case represents an impermissible extraterritorial application of US securities laws. They pointed out that the bonds were not listed in the United States, the issuing company is based in India, and the alleged actions took place entirely within Indian territory. As such, they contend that US laws should not apply to the matter.

The dispute stems from a $750 million bond offering conducted by AGEL in September 2021 under SEC Rule 144A and Regulation S, which allow for private placements to qualified institutional buyers and sales outside the US. According to the defense, AGEL sold the bonds to non-US underwriters, who subsequently resold them, with only a small portion allegedly reaching investors in the United States. Crucially, AGEL was not directly involved in those resale transactions, the lawyers emphasized.

The filing further argues that even if the SEC’s allegations are accepted at face value, they fail to meet the legal threshold required to proceed. The statements cited by the regulator—related to ESG commitments, anti-corruption practices, and corporate reputation—are described as general corporate optimism or “puffery,” which cannot be relied upon as legally actionable misrepresentations.

Additionally, the defense noted that the SEC has not demonstrated any direct involvement by Gautam Adani in approving the bond issuance, attending key meetings, or targeting US investors. Similarly, the complaint reportedly fails to link Sagar Adani to any specific misleading statements.

Citing precedents set by the US Supreme Court, the defendants argued that the SEC has not established the existence of a “domestic transaction,” a key requirement for invoking US securities laws.

The case now awaits the court’s consideration, with the outcome likely to have broader implications for the application of US financial regulations to global business transactions.

(The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)