HDFC Bank will host a group meeting with analysts and institutional investors on September 17, 2026. The session is part of the JP Morgan Emerging and Frontier Markets Opportunities Conference.

The event will take place in London, UK, in an in-person format. The bank issued the intimation pursuant to Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

Meeting Details

The schedule may change due to exigencies on the part of attendees or the bank. Any revisions will be communicated to the stock exchanges. Ajay Agarwal, Company Secretary and Group Head – Secretarial & Group Oversight, signed the disclosure on September 10, 2026.

Rosen Law Firm reminded HDFC Bank Limited investors on September 8, 2026, of the October 13, 2026 deadline to file lead plaintiff applications in a pending securities class action. The firm emphasized that many firms issuing notices act merely as middlemen rather than litigators, urging investors to select counsel with a proven track record.

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC also highlighted that HDFC American Depositary Shares declined 4.1% on May 27, 2026, following reports that the bank disguised interest payments as marketing expenditures. Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reiterated the October 13, 2026 deadline for investors who purchased or acquired HDFC Bank securities between July 17, 2023, and May 26, 2026, to file a motion.

The Rosen Law Firm reiterated its previous notice from September 2, 2026, emphasizing its global representation and success in securing leadership roles in securities class actions. The firm was ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017 and has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. In 2019 alone, the firm secured over $438 million for investors. Founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar in 2020.

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announced on September 2, 2026, that investors have the opportunity to lead the pending securities fraud class action lawsuit. The firm reiterated the October 13, 2026 deadline for participation. The Portnoy Law Firm noted a slightly later deadline of October 17, 2026, to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP highlighted its track record in a separate notice dated August 26, 2026. The firm stated it has recovered more than $10 billion for clients since its founding in 1956. Kaplan Fox noted landmark recoveries including $2.425 billion for Bank of America shareholders and $800 million for the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. The firm emphasized its recognition by Chambers and Partners and Benchmark Litigation.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm’s founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney Lesley F. Portnoy can be contacted at 310-692-8883 or lesley@portnoylaw.com to discuss legal rights or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/hdfc-bank-limited .

The case, Soneji v. HDFC Bank Limited, Case No. 26-cv-06943, is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Bernstein Liebhard LLP highlights its track record of recovering over $3.5 billion for clients since 1993. The firm notes that it has been retained by large public and private pension funds and named to The National Law Journal’s "Plaintiffs’ Hot List" thirteen times. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, meaning shareholders pay no fees or expenses unless the case is successful.

Robbins LLP, based in San Diego, California, emphasized its history of recovering more than $1 billion for investors. Founding Partner Brian J. Robbins stated that their work reinforces principles of honest disclosures and accountability when fiduciary obligations are breached.

ClaimsFiler, operated by Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, specifically targeted investors with losses exceeding $100,000. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notified investors of an alleged chronology where ₹45 crore in deposit inducements routed through the bank's marketing budget remained undisclosed from July 2023 until a newspaper report in May 2026. Joseph E. Levi, Esq., stated, "Timely disclosure of material developments is fundamental to fair and efficient markets. The complaint alleges investors received quarterly margin and expense figures for nearly three years without knowing how a portion of deposit interest was allegedly being recorded."

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP highlighted its team's security of more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. Partner Reed Kathrein stated, "We’re focused on whether HDFC’s senior leadership concealed a covert scheme to funnel millions in disguised payments to induce state-firm deposits while publicly painting a picture of strong governance and compliance, as the complaint alleges."

The consolidated complaint alleges that HDFC Bank made materially false and misleading statements during the class period by failing to disclose that it camouflaged payments as marketing expenditures to pay above-market interest rates to a state-owned enterprise. Specifically, the suit cites reports that the bank funneled approximately ₹45 crore (approximately $4.7 million USD) to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation ("MSRDC") to induce substantial deposits. This arrangement involved offering MSRDC a 6.01% interest rate, which was 2.51 percentage points higher than the rate paid to other depositors. The complaint further alleges these activities were approved by senior management, likely violated regulations prohibiting improper inducements, and resulted in overstated interest income and operating expenses.

Alleged Chronology of Disclosure Events

New details from the filing outline key dates where the lawsuit alleges misstatements occurred:

• July 17, 2023: The Class Period opens with quarterly results reporting net interest income growth of 21.1% and a core net interest margin of 4.1% on total assets. The action alleges these figures did not reflect interest payments routed through the marketing department.
• July 29, 2024 and July 14, 2025: Annual reports on Form 20-F state internal control over financial reporting was effective.
• March and April 2026: An internal probe reportedly concluded that more than ten senior officials bore responsibility.
• March 18, 2026: HDFC Bank reported the resignation of Atanu Chakraborty from his roles as part-time Chairman and Independent Director. His letter cited practices not congruent with his personal values. Following this disclosure, HDFC’s ADS price fell $2.09, or 7.28%, to close at $26.62 per share.
• May 27, 2026: The Indian Express reported the scheme involving a 2.51% interest markup disguised as road safety sponsorship payments. Shares fell $1.02, or 4.1%, to close at $23.78 per share.

Across these two disclosure events, HDB American Depositary Shares declined a cumulative $3.11 per share. Both declines occurred on unusually heavy trading volume, indicating the market was absorbing information it did not previously have.

Individual Defendants and Control Person Liability

Beyond the corporate entity, the action names Sashidhar Jagdishan, Chief Executive Officer at all relevant times, and Srinivasan Vaidyanathan, Chief Financial Officer at all relevant times. The pleading asserts that both officers possessed the power and authority to control the contents of the bank's SEC reports, quarterly results releases, and presentations to analysts and institutional investors.

The complaint charges the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in addition to Section 10(b). In practical terms, this means the officers who allegedly controlled HDFC Bank's disclosures may be held personally answerable for them, not just the corporate entity. Key allegations regarding their control include:

• Both officers are alleged to have controlled the content of the Form 20-F annual reports for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
• Those filings stated that management "concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective."
• The action alleges the arrangement that routed a 2.51% interest markup through the marketing department was approved by senior management.
• A reported internal probe in March and April 2026 concluded that more than ten top officials bore responsibility, including the CEO.
• The complaint contends net interest income, net interest margin, and operating expenses were consequently misstated throughout the Class Period.

Regulatory Compliance and Internal Controls

The complaint challenges whether the bank’s filings adequately conveyed conduct allegedly already underway. SEC filings stated in the Form 20-F for fiscal year 2024 that "management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of March 31, 2024." The fiscal 2025 annual report repeated the same conclusion as of March 31, 2025. Both filings warned in general terms that "[a]ny regulatory investigations, fines, sanctions and requirements relating to conduct of business and financial crime could negatively affect our business and financial results, or cause serious reputational harm," and that "[o]ur systemic and operational controls may not be adequate to prevent any adverse impact from frauds, errors, hacking and system failures."

Officers who certify the accuracy of periodic reports and the effectiveness of internal controls under Sarbanes-Oxley Sections 302 and 906 place their own names behind those representations. Joseph E. Levi, Esq., stated, "Corporate officers have a duty to ensure their companies' public statements are accurate and complete. Here the complaint alleges that internal control certifications were signed while an arrangement to route deposit inducements through a marketing budget was allegedly known to senior management."

What the Numbers Show

The alleged reclassification of ₹45 crore in interest premiums as marketing costs highlights a divergence between reported operating expenses and actual funding costs. By characterizing the premium payment to MSRDC as sponsorship for a road safety awareness initiative, the bank potentially suppressed the visibility of its net interest margin pressure. The 2.51 percentage point spread represents a material concession that distorts the assessment of the bank’s true cost of funds if not properly disclosed.

Because an internal review reportedly concluded that more than ten senior officials bore responsibility, the lawsuit maintains that the alleged misclassification touched both reported margin metrics and the Company’s representations about its control environment. Plaintiffs assert that investors purchasing during the Class Period paid prices that did not reflect these allegedly undisclosed facts.

Investor Action and Lead Plaintiff Deadline

Investors with losses incurred during the specified class period may contact any of the law firms to discuss their rights. A lead plaintiff acts as the representative party for the class, directing the litigation strategy. Investors need not seek to become a lead plaintiff to share in any possible recovery. Eligibility is based on when shares were purchased, not whether they are still held. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, investors are not represented by counsel unless they retain one. Investors may select counsel of their choice or remain an absent class member.

To join the case via Rosen Law Firm, investors can visit https://rosenlegal.com/cases/hdfc-bank-limited/join or contact Phillip Kim, Esq., at 866-767-3653 or case@rosenlegal.com . For Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, investors may email pmayer@kaplanfox.com or call (646) 315-9003. Investors interested in joining through Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC can visit bgandg.com/cases/hdfc-bank-limited-hdb-class_action_lawsuit or contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq., or Nathan Miller at 917-590-0911.

For The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, investors may visit www.frankcruzlaw.com or contact Frank R. Cruz at 310-914-5007 or info@frankcruzlaw.com .

For Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, investors may contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or (212) 363-7500. Alternatively, investors can contact Joseph E. Levi via SueWallSt at jlevi@SueWallSt.com or (888) SueWallSt.

For Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, investors may visit www.hbsslaw.com/cases/hdfc or contact Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or HDB@hbsslaw.com .

For Schall, Brown & Schwartz LLP, investors may contact Brian Schall or David Schwartz at 310-301-3335, visit www.schallfirm.com , or email david@schallfirm.com .

For the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, investors may contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, at (215) 638-4847, email howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com , or visit www.howardsmithlaw.com .

For Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, investors may contact Charles Linehan, Esq., at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224, or email shareholders@glancylaw.com . Their website is www.glancylaw.com .

For Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., investors may contact Brandon Walker, Esq., or Melissa Fortunato, Esq., at (212) 355-4648 or investigations@bespc.com . Their website is www.bespc.com .

For Kirby McInerney LLP, investors may contact Lauren Molinaro, Esq., at 212-699-1171 or investigations@kmllp.com . Their website is www.kmllp.com .

For Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, investors may contact Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-833-538-3616 or via email at lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com . More information is available at https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-hdb/ .

For Robbins LLP, investors seeking additional information about the HDFC Bank Limited securities class action may submit an inquiry, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or call (800) 350-6003.

For Gainey McKenna & Egleston, investors should contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or egleston@gme-law.com . Their website is http://www.gme-law.com .

For Bernstein Liebhard LLP, investors can submit a form at HDFC Bank Limited Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Investor Relations Manager Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com .