Adani-Hindenburg Controversy: A Timeline of the Report, SEBI Probes, Court Rulings and Settlements

What is still open as of today Unresolved

A search of SEBI’s enforcement-order listing for “Adani” from 1 September to 25 October 2026 returned only the settlement orders of 22 and 28 September, the final order of 28 September and a corrigendum of 29 September, which only filled in that order’s date (SEBI). No appeal against these orders was reported in the sources checked; an appeal would go to the Securities Appellate Tribunal. SEBI has not published a count of Hindenburg-linked matters still open. Reuters reported on 22 September that broader examinations, on issues such as public-shareholding rules and alleged trading manipulation, were still pending (via NiftyTrader), and Bloomberg said the same after the September 2025 orders (Bloomberg). In the US, the judge reserved judgment on the charges against the other defendants in the criminal case (Outlook).

SEBI finds shareholding allegations against Vinod Adani not established; case settled for others Regulator order

In an 81-page final order dated 28 September 2026, SEBI whole-time member Kamlesh Chandra Varshney held that the investigation had not shown that Vinod Adani, Gautam Adani’s brother, controlled the investment decisions of two foreign portfolio investors, Emerging India Focus Funds and EM Resurgent Fund, or the holding of Opal Investments in Adani Power. The order found the minimum public shareholding (MPS) and fraud allegations “not established” against him and 11 other noticees. It said de facto control must be shown by evidence of positively directing decisions, not inferred from business or financial relationships alone, and that a non-binding advisory agreement did not establish it. It fined Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli and Chang Chung-Ling Rs 20 lakh each for failing to furnish correct and complete information (SEBI final order). A corrigendum on 29 September only inserted the order’s date.

Earlier the same day, in a separate settlement order, the same member disposed of the MPS proceedings against 18 applicants: Adani Enterprises, Adani Power, Adani Ports and Adani Transmission (now Adani Energy Solutions), Gautam Adani and 13 other directors. Each company paid Rs 37.05 lakh jointly and severally with its directors, Rs 1.482 crore in all, on 26 August 2026, after the panel of whole-time members approved the terms on 13 August. They settled without admitting or denying the allegations; the order contains no corrective direction, and SEBI kept the right to revive the proceedings if representations prove untrue (SEBI settlement order). The final order notes that although the MPS violation was not established, the settlement was allowed to attain finality because those parties chose to settle.

Five Adani companies settle disclosure and audit proceedings Regulator order

SEBI adjudicating officer Jai Sebastian passed a settlement order on 22 September 2026, on a show-cause notice of 15 February 2024 (SEBI order). Five companies paid Rs 1.508 crore in total: Adani Enterprises Rs 76.05 lakh, Adani Green Energy Rs 45.50 lakh, and Adani Total Gas, AWL Agri Business and Adani Energy Solutions Rs 9.75 lakh each. The proceedings concerned related-party transaction disclosures and governance issues highlighted in the Hindenburg report, and audit or limited-review reports signed by firms that allegedly lacked valid peer-review certificates. For Adani Enterprises the related-party items were Adani Estates and Vakoder Investment in its FY2013 annual report. The companies settled without admitting or denying the findings of fact or conclusions of law. A high-powered committee had recommended the amounts on 29 June, the panel accepted them on 13 August, and the companies reported payment on 5 September (SEBI order; LiveLaw).

US court dismisses the criminal case against Gautam Adani; SEC judgment entered Court order

US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis dismissed the criminal securities-fraud and wire-fraud charges against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain with prejudice, so they cannot be refiled. Reports say the judge accepted the Justice Department’s request but voiced serious concern about irregularities in its decision, and reserved judgment on the bribery and obstruction charges against other defendants (Outlook). Outlook’s report does not describe a ruling on guilt or innocence. The same day, the judge entered the SEC’s civil judgments: Gautam Adani pays $6 million and Sagar Adani $12 million, neither admitting nor denying the allegations (MLex). Gautam Adani welcomed the decision. The group had said it was not a party to the US proceedings.

Justice Department moves to drop the case; judge asks for reasons Court order

On 18 May 2026 the Justice Department asked the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, citing prosecutorial discretion (Business Today). Some outlets wrongly reported the dismissal as done. In June Judge Garaufis declined to act at once, calling the government’s explanation “terse, bland, and conclusory” (Bar and Bench, 27 June). In early July the department filed a fuller explanation, arguing that the case should never have been brought, that the conduct was centred in India and that the statements at issue were general compliance claims (Business Today, 5 July). The judge had also refused a non-party’s bid to intervene in the SEC case in July. The SEC meanwhile asked the court to approve settlement judgments of $6 million for Gautam and $12 million for Sagar Adani (OCCRP).

SEC case clears a service dispute; motion to dismiss scheduled Established

In January 2026 the SEC and the Adanis’ US lawyers agreed that the lawyers would accept the complaint, removing the need for a judge to rule on how to serve the defendants (Business Standard, via Reuters). By April a judge had scheduled a hearing on Adani’s motion to dismiss, which argued the case applied US law outside US territory. The settlement of May 2026 overtook that hearing.

SEBI dismisses two allegations; others remain Regulator order

SEBI whole-time member Kamlesh C. Varshney issued two final orders on 18 September 2025 finding the allegations not established in proceedings tied to Hindenburg’s claims; one, against Adani Ports, Adani Power, Adicorp Enterprises, Gautam Adani and Rajesh Adani, is titled after the “Hindenburg allegations” (SEBI order). They concerned loans routed through three entities, Adicorp Enterprises, Milestone Tradelinks and Rehvar Infrastructure. SEBI said the dealings took place when transactions with such parties did not count as related-party transactions (a definition changed by a 2021 amendment), that the loans were repaid, funds were used for their stated purpose, and there was no fraud or unfair trade practice (Outlook Money). Reuters described the outcomes as dismissal of one stock-manipulation and one related-party-disclosure allegation. Bloomberg reported that SEBI was still examining other Hindenburg accusations, so the group got only a partial reprieve (Bloomberg).

Lokpal dismisses complaints against former SEBI chief Buch Court order

The Lokpal, headed on this order by Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, dismissed all three complaints against former SEBI chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, which were built mainly on Hindenburg’s August 2024 report. It found no prima facie case, called the allegations “more on presumptions and assumptions”, and noted that her roughly Rs 5 crore investment in the fund concerned was redeemed in 2018, before SEBI’s Adani probe began in 2020 (SCC Online). The brief behind this page omitted this ruling.

Hindenburg Research announces its closure Established

Founder Nate Anderson said he was shutting the firm, citing the intensity of the work and saying there was no particular threat, health or personal issue behind the decision. He said nearly 100 individuals had faced civil or criminal charges partly because of the firm’s work (DT Next). The closure did not end the SEBI, Indian court or US proceedings it had set in motion.

US prosecutors and the SEC charge Gautam Adani in a separate bribery case Allegation

US prosecutors unsealed an indictment in the Eastern District of New York alleging a scheme to pay more than $265 million in bribes to Indian officials to win solar contracts expected to yield about $2 billion in profit over 20 years. Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain faced securities-fraud and wire-fraud conspiracy charges (Newslaundry). The SEC filed a civil complaint the same day against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Azure Power’s former director Cyril Cabanes, tying it to Adani Green’s September 2021 note offering of $750 million, which raised about $175 million from US investors (SEC Litigation Release 26177). The group called the allegations baseless.

Hindenburg targets SEBI’s chairperson Allegation

Hindenburg alleged that SEBI chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch and her husband Dhaval Buch held investments in offshore funds linked to Adani-associated entities. Both denied it, and SEBI issued a statement the next day (SEBI press release 37/2024). The allegations were claims by a short seller. The Lokpal later dismissed the related complaints (see 28 May 2025).

Supreme Court rejects a review of its January ruling Court order

A bench of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed a review petition by Anamika Jaiswal, one of the original petitioners, finding no error apparent on the face of the record. Reports disagree on the order date, giving 5 or 8 May 2024, but agree it became public on 15 July (Verdictum). The brief behind this page said 16 July.

Supreme Court declines to move the probe from SEBI Court order

The Court refused a special investigation team or CBI probe, said media reports and third-party studies are inputs, not conclusive proof, and noted that SEBI had completed 22 of 24 investigations. It directed SEBI to finish the rest, preferably within three months, and asked the government and SEBI to consider the expert committee’s recommendations (Gulf News, citing Bloomberg).

Supreme Court reserves its verdict Court order

After hearing petitions that questioned whether SEBI’s investigation was adequate and whether a court-monitored probe was needed, the Court reserved judgment. The ruling came on 3 January 2024.

SEBI reports 22 of 24 investigations complete Established

SEBI told the Court that 22 of its 24 investigations were finished and the other two were at an interim stage, awaiting information from foreign regulators (Business Standard). The 24 investigations are SEBI’s own count of probes, not a count of Hindenburg’s allegations or of companies.

Court-appointed expert committee reports Established

The committee found, prima facie, no regulatory lapse by SEBI and no clear pattern of manipulation traceable to one entity or group, but noted it was limited to checking regulatory failure. Exchanges had reviewed 849 alerts on Adani scrips, and suspicious trading around the Hindenburg report was seen for six entities, whose names were withheld. On 13 overseas entities, SEBI had not shown their declared ownership to be false, so the matter was “not proved” (Bar and Bench).

Supreme Court orders a SEBI probe and forms an expert committee Court order

The Court directed SEBI to investigate and appointed an expert committee under former Supreme Court judge Justice A. M. Sapre to examine regulatory failure and recommend investor-protection measures (The Wire).

Value loss, bank caution and a political fight Established

Estimates of group market value lost ranged from more than $100 billion by 2 February (CNBC) to more than $150 billion at one point, per Bloomberg; the figures depend on date and method. Credit Suisse’s private bank was reported to have stopped giving lending value to Adani Ports, Adani Green and Adani Electricity Mumbai bonds (Business Today). Opposition parties demanded a joint parliamentary committee or court-monitored probe, and the issue disrupted Parliament, as the brief behind this page notes.

Adani Enterprises withdraws its Rs 20,000-crore follow-on offer Established

The company called off the offer and said it would refund the money, calling it the right step to protect investors amid “unprecedented” volatility (Business Standard).

The group answers in 413 pages; Hindenburg replies Allegation

The Adani Group published a 413-page response calling the report a lie and a calculated attack on India and its institutions, and pointing to the timing of its share sale (Free Press Journal). Hindenburg replied that fraud cannot be obfuscated by nationalism and that the response ignored its key allegations. The two sides gave sharply conflicting accounts.

Hindenburg Research publishes its report Allegation

The US firm alleged stock manipulation, accounting fraud and improper use of offshore entities by the Adani Group, and raised concerns on debt, related-party dealings and governance. It said some listed companies were more than 85 per cent overvalued and disclosed that it held short positions (Wikipedia). A short seller profits if prices fall, which is relevant to its motive but does not prove or disprove any claim. The group rejected the report.