Fourteen months after U.S. regulators filed civil fraud charges against Indian industrialist Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani, the pair have made their first formal filing in a U.S. federal court, signalling a new chapter in what has been a complex and protracted legal confrontation. Lawyers for the Adanis submitted a letter to a New York federal judge on January 23, 2026, updating the court on their engagement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over procedural issues relating to service of summonses in the case. The filing comes after extended delays and procedural disputes with Indian authorities, and represents the first active step by the Adanis in the U.S. court process since the SEC’s civil complaint was lodged in November 2024.
Allegations of securities fraud related to a $750 million bond offering that generated over $175 million from American investors are at the heart of the civil lawsuit. In connection with the transaction, the SEC claims the Adanis made materially misleading statements and omissions to investors. They have attempted to serve them with legal documents using international treaty procedures, a process that has been difficult and time-consuming. The Adani Group is going to stand up to itself and has clearly disputed the accusations, calling them “baseless.”
Details of the First Filing and Legal Strategy:
In the letter filed to U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, lawyers from the firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP representing Gautam and Sagar Adani said they were in active discussions with the SEC to determine an agreed-upon method for serving the summonses. They asked the court to defer ruling on the SEC’s pending motion while these discussions continue. The lawyers did not disclose the substance of the negotiations or any proposed terms, but the filing marks a distinct shift from more than a year of procedural standstill.
The Hague Service Convention, an international agreement governing cross-border delivery of judicial notifications, usually governs the serving of legal documents on defendants who are located abroad. In this instance, in February 2025, the SEC made an initial attempt to deliver the summons documents via India’s Ministry of Law and Justice. However, the ministry rejected the request twice: initially in May 2025, claiming missing seals and signatures on SEC documents, and again in December, citing a different technical problem related to internal procedural regulations.
Following these rejections, the SEC requested permission from the court to serve the summonses directly by email and through the Adanis’ U.S. attorney, therefore avoiding India’s official channels. The SEC requested that the New York court approve these alternate serving techniques in a motion submitted two days before to the Adanis’ own court filing. They claimed that diplomatic service was no longer feasible and that the defendants were already aware of the litigation.
The Adanis’ filing represents the first time they have formally responded to the procedural actions in the U.S. court, choosing to engage with the SEC about service rather than continuing to let delays mount. It reflects a possible willingness to move the proceedings forward, albeit cautiously and without conceding any liability or merits of the underlying allegations.
Background of the SEC Case and India’s Role:
The civil complaint by the SEC, filed in November 2024, accuses Gautam and Sagar Adani of securities fraud tied to a bond issuance whose documentation allegedly contained false or misleading information for U.S. investors. Though the Adanis and the Adani Group corporations have protested the allegations, the SEC pursuit highlights the reach of U.S. securities laws when American investors or financial systems are involved.
The prolonged difficulty in serving legal papers has centred on India’s Ministry of Law and Justice, which twice refused to deliver the summonses under the Hague Convention. In the first instance, the ministry contended that the documents lacked required signatures and an official seal. In the second refusal, officials cited a technicality regarding the SEC’s internal procedures, arguing the summons did not fall under categories covered by the treaty. The SEC responded that these objections lacked legal basis, noting that neither a signed cover letter nor official seal are mandatory for Hague Convention service requests.
As a result, U.S. regulators have grown increasingly frustrated and said they “do not expect service to be completed” under traditional treaty channels. Hence the motion to seek direct, court-approved methods of serving summonses on email or through legal counsel. These developments highlight the procedural challenges and diplomatic sensitivities inherent in international legal cooperation, especially when cases involve high-profile figures from major global companies.
What’s Next in the Proceedings:
With this filing, Gautam and Sagar Adani have taken a significant procedural step in responding to the SEC’s claims in U.S. federal court. The next major developments will hinge on whether the parties can agree on a way to serve summonses and how the court rules on the SEC’s request to allow alternative methods of service. If an agreement is reached, it could pave the way for fuller participation by the Adanis in defending against the civil charges substantively. If not, the court’s ruling on service methods will shape how the case proceeds, possibly allowing the SEC to push ahead with its claims regardless of India’s earlier refusals.
For the time being, both parties are still deeply involved in legal battles over procedural and technical matters, despite the fact that the underlying accusations continue to influence how the Adani Group is viewed in the financial and regulatory communities around the world.
