Three US law firms probe HDFC Bank over alleged Maharashtra deposit payments
Jul 23, 2026
Synopsis
HDFC Bank is facing fresh scrutiny in the US after three law firms launched investigations into whether the lender violated federal securities laws over allegations that it disguised ₹45 crore in payments to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) as marketing expenses.
HDFC Bank is facing fresh scrutiny in the United States, with three separate US law firms announcing investigations into whether the lender violated federal securities laws. This widens the fallout from allegations that the lender disguised Rs 45 crore in payments to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) as marketing spend.
Los Angeles-based Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, and the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz in Century City have each said they are looking into potential securities law violations by the bank and are inviting HDFC Bank shareholders who suffered losses to come forward.
None of the three firms has yet disclosed whether the investigations have progressed to a formal class action filing. Typically, in such cases, US securities firms use these early-stage investigation announcements to identify a lead plaintiff before petitioning a federal court, a process that can take weeks to months.
HDFC Bank did not respond to an ET query.
HDFC Bank's shares are listed as ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on US bourses.
The investigations trace back to the investigative report, which alleged that HDFC Bank had made payments to Maharashtra's road development corporation in order to attract large deposits from the state agency. According to the report, the payments were booked as marketing expenses to make it appear the money was being spent to incentivise the department to park funds with the bank, rather than disclosed as what they allegedly were.
Investors responded swiftly. HDFC Bank's NYSE-listed shares fell $1.02, or about 4.1%, to close at $23.78 on May 27, 2026, the day the report surfaced, a move the law firms cite as evidence that the disclosure caused direct financial harm to shareholders.
The lender, however, had strongly denied allegations of wrongdoing at that time.
"The bank has robust internal oversight, audit and control processes and systems. All issues are dealt with in accordance with the bank's established norms, and full process is always followed before final determination post any internal review. We strongly reject any assumptions of wrongdoing or culpability based on selective material," the bank said in a statement on May 27.
Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP has set up a dedicated case page for HDFC Bank investors and is also flagging the matter under the SEC's whistleblower programme, noting that individuals with non-public information could be eligible for an award of up to 30% of any amount the SEC recovers. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith is asking affected investors to reach out directly by phone or email to discuss their legal options. Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz has similarly opened its own case file and is soliciting shareholders who purchased HDFC Bank securities and believe they were harmed.
[The Economic Times]
