New York, April 7 (NationPress) In a significant turn of events, Gautam Adani along with his nephew Sagar Adani have approached a US court to request the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Their legal team contends that the case is beyond the jurisdiction of the US and does not substantiate any claims of misconduct.

The defendants aim for a complete dismissal of the lawsuit and have expressed their readiness to participate in a pre-motion conference if necessary.

In their pre-motion correspondence, the Adanis asserted that the SEC's allegations regarding a bond sale in 2021 by Adani Green Energy Ltd (AGEL), the group’s renewable energy subsidiary, are fundamentally “legally flawed” for various reasons.

They maintain that the court lacks personal jurisdiction, arguing that neither defendant has substantial connections with the US or direct involvement in the bond transaction.

The filing emphasizes that the SEC's case is improperly extraterritorial, highlighting that the securities were not registered in the US, the issuer is based in India, and any alleged misconduct occurred entirely within India.

In September 2021, AGEL executed a $750 million bond offering under SEC Rule 144A and SEC Regulation S, which provide registration exemptions for private resales to qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) and non-US transactions.

These bonds were sold by AGEL outside the US via agreements with non-US underwriters, who subsequently resold them to QIBs. Only a small portion of these resales is claimed to have been made to “investors in the United States”.

AGEL itself was not involved in these resales, as stated by the defendants' attorneys in their letter.

The reasons for dismissal also include the SEC’s inability to present a valid claim, since the defendants do not operate in the US and the actions in question involve entities outside the reach of US law.

Even if the allegations are taken at face value, the complaint fails to demonstrate any legal violation or meet the necessary criteria to advance. The statements referenced are neither materially false nor misleading, and without direct involvement in the offering, the defendants cannot be held accountable, according to the letter.

Furthermore, the lawyers pointed out that the SEC complaint does not allege that Gautam Adani sanctioned the bond issuance, participated in critical meetings, or directed any activities pertaining to US investors.

Referring to US Supreme Court rulings, the defendants claimed that the SEC has not demonstrated any “domestic transaction”, which is a prerequisite for invoking US securities regulations.

The filing argues that the statements cited by the SEC concerning ESG commitments, anti-corruption measures, and corporate reputation constitute non-actionable “puffery,” or general corporate optimism, which cannot be reasonably relied upon by investors.

Additionally, the SEC has failed to connect Sagar Adani to any specific allegedly false or misleading statement, particularly one aimed at US investors, as highlighted in the letter.