Why the Adanis accepted the US SEC notice after a year-long stalemate

New Delhi: For more than a year, the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s civil fraud case against Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani sat in a procedural freeze.

The regulator filed its complaint in November 2024 and the allegations entered the public domain. But the case could not meaningfully progress because the defendants were in India and formal service of summons had not been completed.

That freeze is now over, with the Adanis agreeing to accept a legal notice from the SEC in a civil fraud lawsuit that alleges they misled investors about a bribery scheme.

The stalemate broke after the SEC asked a federal judge in Brooklyn to allow “alternative service” methods, including service through the defendants’ US counsel and business emails, after the Hague Convention route through India did not result in service.

Soon after that motion was filed, counsel for Gautam and Sagar Adani agreed to accept service, while explicitly preserving every defence, including challenges relating to personal jurisdiction.

The joint filing removed the need for the court to rule on the SEC’s alternative service request, allowing the case to finally move to the next stage.

So why now?

The shift came after the SEC moved the court for permission to use alternative service methods, including service through counsel and business emails.

A service impasse is not just a technicality in the US system. Without service, deadlines do not begin to run. The case does not move to motions and discovery in the usual way.

The longer service is delayed, the longer a defendant avoids the moment when the court’s timetable begins to bite.

The SEC’s filing and public reporting around it show that the regulator attempted formal service via the Hague Convention mechanism, including a request routed to India’s Ministry of Law and Justice. But service still had not been effected.

When the SEC sought court permission for alternative service in January 2026, it signalled two things at once.

First, the regulator was effectively telling the court it had waited long enough and needed a way to move the case forward.

Second, it was inviting the judge to formally recognise that conventional service routes had failed and that extraordinary methods, including email, were warranted.

A court order permitting email service does more than solve a logistics problem. It also reshapes the procedural record of the case.

Such an order would have formally recorded that conventional service attempts had not been completed, clearing the procedural hurdle for the SEC to move the case forward.

Accepting service through counsel also meant the court did not have to rule on the SEC’s request for alternative service.

They agreed to service without conceding jurisdiction, a distinction Adani Green Energy also underscored in its clarification. The company said the defendants accepted service “without accepting the jurisdiction” of the Eastern District of New York and while reserving all defences.

In other words, they are accepting the papers while keeping the right to argue that the court cannot hear the case.

In late January, reports noted market sensitivity around these filings, and Adani group companies issued clarifications stressing that the companies were not parties and that operations continued normally.

Accepting service replaces an open-ended “will they be served?” loop with a predictable litigation timetable.

Adani Green Energy’s clarification indicated that the defendants intended to move to dismiss the SEC complaint or file responsive pleadings, characterising the acceptance of service as a procedural step.

And the docket reflects that once service is resolved, the case shifts to motions, typically around jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the complaint.

NewsDrum reported that Gautam Adani has hired Robert Giuffra Jr of Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent Wall Street lawyer. That firm’s presence typically signals an intent to press early motions, narrow scope, and manage reputational and market consequences as carefully as the legal arguments.

Bloomberg also reported that Adani representatives were arguing that the prosecution does not align with the priorities of US President Donald Trump, indicating the defence is thinking in both legal and political frames.

Even if that argument never becomes a formal courtroom position, the next phase is expected to centre on jurisdiction challenges and a possible motion to dismiss.

It is important to be clear that accepting service does not mean the Adanis have conceded the SEC’s allegations. The procedural step does not address the substance of the SEC’s claims, which the Adani Group has denied, and which the court will now begin to test.

The SEC’s case, as described by the regulator, alleges securities-law violations connected to representations to investors, and it was filed alongside parallel criminal charges unsealed by the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.

Adani Green Energy has reiterated that the company is not a party. It has also said it understands the defendants have not been charged with violations of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, while emphasising that the SEC matter is civil in nature.

What it signals

By accepting service, the defendants end the service-related delay that has held up the civil case.

In return, the agreement shifts the case from a service dispute to courtroom arguments, including jurisdiction and dismissal.

The next phase, if the stipulation is approved, will show how aggressive the defence intends to be: whether it goes straight to jurisdiction, whether it attempts to knock out parts of the complaint, and how quickly the SEC pushes back.

With the SEC moving for alternative service, the dispute has shifted from service mechanics to legal arguments the court will now have to consider.