Adani Group Makes First Legal Move in US Bribery Case, Requests Court Deferral
In a significant development in the ongoing US legal proceedings, the Adani Group has formally entered the fray with its first legal submission. Gautam Adani, the chairman of the conglomerate, along with his nephew Sagar Adani, have petitioned a US court to delay its ruling on a recent motion filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This move comes more than a year after the initial allegations were brought forward, marking a pivotal moment in the high-profile case.
Details of the Legal Submission and Request for Deferral
The submission, made on behalf of Gautam Adani by the global law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and consented to by Sagar Adani, was filed with the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It specifically requests the court to postpone its decision on an SEC motion dated 21 January. The rationale behind this request is that Adani's legal counsel and the US regulator are currently engaged in discussions regarding a stipulation related to the case.
A stipulation, in legal terms, refers to a formal agreement between opposing parties in a lawsuit concerning a fact or procedural matter. This agreement allows both sides to acknowledge certain aspects without the need for repeated debate in court proceedings. While the exact nature of the stipulation under discussion has not been disclosed by Adani's counsel, its potential implications could streamline future legal processes.
Background of the SEC Allegations and Case Overview
The case stems from allegations made by US regulators in November 2024, accusing Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani, among others, of involvement in bribery and securities fraud. According to the SEC, the Adanis allegedly paid bribes to government officials in India to secure favorable power-supply contracts for Adani Green Energy Ltd. Furthermore, the regulators claim that the Adani Group misrepresented its anti-bribery policies when raising capital from American investors and failed to disclose these alleged bribes, constituting securities fraud.
These serious charges have placed the Adani Group under intense scrutiny, with the legal proceedings unfolding over the past 14 months since the SEC initially filed the case. The recent submission represents the first formal legal response from the Adani side in this protracted dispute.
SEC's Procedural Requests and Legal Maneuvers
In its efforts to advance the case, the SEC has sought court permission to serve summonses and a copy of the complaint directly via email to the Adani kin and their advocates. This request aims to bypass the standard procedure, which typically involves serving these documents through India's Ministry of Law and Justice. The US regulator has cited procedural issues, claiming that the Indian government twice rejected its requests to serve the summonses through official channels.
Under American law, it is mandatory for a summons and complaint to be delivered in person to the accused to ensure they are fully aware of the charges against them. However, the SEC argues that since Gautam Adani has publicly commented on the case and both he and Sagar Adani have retained law firms for representation, it can be reasonably assumed they are informed of the allegations. Consequently, the regulator is pushing for alternative methods of service, including email and delivery through their US counsel.
Legal Representation and Firm Involvement
Interestingly, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, which filed the recent submission on behalf of Gautam Adani, was not listed among the law firms representing him in the SEC's filing on 21 January. According to SEC disclosures, Sagar Adani has engaged Hecker Fink LLP, while Gautam Adani has hired two firms: Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. This discrepancy highlights the complex and evolving nature of legal representation in such high-stakes cases.
As of now, neither Sullivan & Cromwell nor the Adani Group has responded to requests for comment on the latest developments. The case continues to unfold, with all eyes on the US court's response to the deferral request and the ongoing discussions between the parties involved.
