deals, and is based out of an apartment in the UAE. It lent U.S. $1 billion to an Adani Power subsidiary. What was the source of the Emerging Market Investment DMCC funds? This allegation is clearly incorrect and is due to a lack of understanding of the Indian debt restructuring regulations. As part of the debt resolution plan of Mahan Energen Limited (earlier named as Essar Mahan Limited), duly approved by the NCLT under the Indian Bankruptcy Code, Emerging Market Investment DMCC (an affiliate of Adani Power Limited, the successful bidder for this asset) acquired the unsustainable debt from the erstwhile lenders of Mahan Energen Limited for a consideration of USD 100. Emerging Market Investment DMCC has not ‘lent’ U.S. $1 billion to Mahan Energen, but has acquired this debt by paying USD 100 as part of the NCLT approved resolution plan. The order of the National Company Law Tribunal is annexed as Annexure 7. In any event, there is no restriction on Adani listed entities/ their subsidiaries to avail loans from promoter entities from time to time for their business purposes. All such loans are availed in compliance with relevant laws and are suitably disclosed as required under the laws and accounting standard. 31/(Allegation #58) In FY20, AdiCorp Enterprises only generated INR 6.9 million (U.S. $97,000) in net profit. That same year, 4 Adani Group companies entities lent it U.S. ~$87.4 million, or more than 900 years of AdiCorp net income. These loans seemed to make little financial sense. What was the underwriting process and business rationale that went into making these loans? 32/ (Allegation #59) AdiCorp almost immediately re-lent 98% of those loans to listed Adani Power. Was AdiCorp simply used as a conduit to surreptitiously move funds into Adani Power from other Adani Group entities and side-step related party norms? Common Response - AdiCorp is not a related party, and transactions with AdiCorp are not ‘related party transactions’ under laws of Indian or accounting standards and these have been undertaken in compliance with applicable law. 33/ (Allegation #61) Listed company Adani Enterprises paid U.S. $100 million to a company, ultimately held by private trust of the Adani family in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), a notorious Caribbean tax haven, with the claimed rationale being to pay a security deposit to use an Australian coal terminal. Why did the listed company need to pay such lucrative fees to Adani’s private interests? Hindenburg seems to suggest, that simply because two parties are related, transactions between them cannot be for arm’s length consideration. It has clearly been disclosed by us that North Queensland Export Terminal Pty Ltd (formerly known as Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd) (“N XT”) is a related party of Adani Mining Pty Ltd (a stepdown subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Limited), and transactions between them are related party transactions. Hindenburg has also conveniently failed to mention that NQXT is a multi-user terminal and Adani Mining Pty Ltd is one of more than nine major long-term customers of NQXT. As part of any long term take or pay contract for accessing the port infrastructure such as NQXT, users typically provide credit support in order to secure their obligations. In this case, as fully disclosed, Adani Mining Pty Ltd paid N XT a ‘security deposit’ to secure its obligations under the long term take or pay contract. The amount was neither ‘charged’ nor was a ‘fee’ as incorrectly alleged in the report. 36