Gautam Adani agrees to accept US SEC legal notice in civil fraud case

Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani have submitted a joint stipulation in a US federal court agreeing to accept legal notice from the US Securities and Exchange Commission in an ongoing civil fraud case, subject to court approval and a defined response timeline.

A new development has emerged in the ongoing civil fraud case between the US Securities and Exchange Commission and Gautam Adani. The US SEC had sought court permission to serve summons directly on Adani by bypassing the Government of India.

According to a petition filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani have submitted a standard joint stipulation agreeing to accept legal notice from the US SEC. If the judge approves the stipulation, Adani will have 90 days to respond to the SEC’s complaint or file a motion to dismiss the case.

Under the proposed schedule outlined in the joint filing, Adani would be required to submit his response or a motion to dismiss within 90 days. The SEC would then have 60 days to file its opposition, following which the defendants would have 45 days to reply to the SEC’s opposition.

The US SEC has alleged that Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani were involved in a scheme to pay or promise millions of dollars in bribes to Indian government officials to benefit Adani Green Energy. The case was filed in November 2024, though public updates have been limited since last year. The SEC had requested permission to serve notice directly to Adani after citing difficulties in transmitting legal documents through Indian authorities.

Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani are named as executives and directors in the case. The allegations include claims that investors were misled about corruption and fraud linked to the alleged bribery scheme.

US-based lawyers representing the Adanis informed the court that they have agreed to accept service of the SEC’s legal documents. Robert Giuffra, counsel for Gautam Adani, and Sean Hecker, counsel for Sagar Adani, declined to comment on the matter. The court is now required to decide on the approval of the stipulation and the applicable timeline for service and subsequent filings.

 

Leave a comment