HDFC Bank announced on June 26, 2026, that an extensive external legal review found no evidence to substantiate the concerns raised by Atanu Chakraborty in his resignation letter. The private-sector lender disclosed these findings in regulatory filings to both the BSE and the National Stock Exchange.
The comprehensive review, which spanned three months, was initiated by HDFC Bank on March 24, 2026. Its primary objective was to assess whether the issues mentioned in Chakraborty’s resignation statement were supported by the bank's records. The investigation also sought to determine if he had formally recorded any dissent and how the bank had addressed such instances.
Independent Firms Conduct Thorough Investigation
The review was conducted jointly by prominent US law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Indian law firm Wadia Ghandy & Co. Their mandate covered the two years leading up to Chakraborty’s resignation, meticulously examining thousands of documents. This included board and committee meeting minutes, agenda papers, and related communications.
In addition to document analysis, the legal firms conducted individual discussions with all independent directors, including chairpersons of relevant board committees, as well as the managing director, chief executive officer, and senior executives overseeing control and assurance functions.
Chakraborty Did Not Participate
HDFC Bank and the external legal firms repeatedly invited Atanu Chakraborty to participate in an interview as part of the review process. However, according to the bank's statement, the interaction ultimately did not take place, despite multiple requests.
Review Finds No Basis for Allegations
Following the exhaustive examination, the law firms concluded that the concerns articulated in Chakraborty’s statement, along with their implications, were not supported by the documentary evidence or the witness interviews conducted. They noted that the minutes of meetings attended by Chakraborty underwent a rigorous drafting, review, and approval process, which would have provided an opportunity to formally record any "happenings and practices" he deemed misaligned with his personal values and ethics.
However, the firms found no contemporaneous material within board or committee minutes, agenda documents, or communications related to minute approvals that supported such concerns. Witness interviews also failed to substantiate his statement.
No Evidence Related to "Dubai Matter" Concerns
The review specifically addressed references made by Chakraborty to a "Dubai matter" in public statements after his resignation. The external firms found no contemporaneous evidence indicating that he had raised concerns tied to his personal values and ethics in connection with this matter. Furthermore, no record suggested that he had disagreed with decisions made by the board or relevant board committees concerning the "Dubai matter" or any other issues they addressed.
In summary, the legal firms concluded that the contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent with Mr. Chakraborty’s statement, and their comprehensive review identified no basis for the concerns he raised.