Page 27 - The Indian EYE 041726

NORTH AMERICAN Newsline APRIL 17, 2026 | The Indian Eye 27

Adani’s plea seeking

pre-motion conference to dismiss

SEC case accepted by US court

OUR BUREAU
New York, NY
he U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York
Thas accepted a plea filed by
the counsels for Gautam and Sagar
Adani for a pre-motion conference to
dismiss the case.
In an order the court said that it
had received the defendants’ letter
requesting a pre-motion conference
on their anticipated motion to dis-
miss the complaint. The court said
that it granted that request and di-
rected the parties to confer and to
contact the court’s deputy to sched-
ule the pre-motion conference.

Earlier on Tuesday, the counsels
for Gautam and Sagar Adani in-
formed that they intend to seek
to dismiss the US SEC’s com-

plaint by April 30 and, as part
of this process, have submitted
a letter with the East District
New York (EDNY) judge inform-

ing the Court that the Defen-
dants are prepared to attend a
Gautam Adani is represented
pre-motion conference should by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, while in the letter to the court. 2020 and 2024 to secure solar ener-
The defendants say that the
gy contracts in India.
the Court wish to schedule one. Sagar Adani’s counsel is Nixon Pea- grounds for dismissal also include The defendants say that the
body LLP and Hecker Fink LLP. the SEC’s failure to state a claim Court lacks personal jurisdiction
In the letter, the Defendants According to the counsels, in on the basis that the defendants are over defendants and the claims
briefly set out their grounds for September 2021, AGEL conducted neither based in the US nor conduct against them should be dismissed
dismissal of SEC’s complaint, in- a USD 750 million bond offering activities there that would grant the under Rule 12(b)(2). The claims ac-
cluding that the court concerned pursuant to SEC Rule 144A and court jurisdiction and the alleged cording to the lawyers “involve Indi-
lacks personal jurisdiction over the SEC Regulation S, which are reg- actions involve non-US entities out- an Defendants, an Indian issuer, se-
Defendants and the claims against istration exemptions for private side the scope of US law. curities not registered with the SEC
them, the SEC’s claims are imper- resales to qualified institutional The defendants also say that and not traded on U.S. exchanges,
missibly extraterritorial, the alleged buyers (QIBs) and non-US sales. even if the claims are accept- and underlying conduct alleged to
misstatements by the Defendants AGEL sold these bonds outside the ed at face value, the complaint have occurred exclusively in India.”
are too vague and general for any US through an agreement to non- fails to establish any action- The counsels said, the SEC has
reasonable investor to rely upon as US underwriters, who then resold able legal violation or meet the not alleged underwriters who pur-
a guarantee of any concrete fact or the Notes to QIBs. A fraction of threshold required to proceed. chased the bonds from AGEL were
outcome, making them in-action- those resales is alleged to have been The US SEC had alleged that US institutions as they were not, or
able, and the Defendants’ lack of made to “investors in the United Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and that the Subscription Agreement
involvement in the transaction bars States”. AGEL was not a party to others orchestrated a USD 250 mil- underlying the purchases was gov-
the SEC’s claims against them. these transactions, the lawyers said lion-plus bribery scheme between erned by US law as it wasn’t.”

www.TheIndianEYE.com