remained under pressure on Thursday, leading the losers on the amid a US class-action lawsuit alleging that the bank violated foreign securities laws and caused losses to investors.
The stock has hit a fresh 52-week low of ₹710 in today’s session on the down 2.3 per cent from the previous close of ₹727.20. At 1.32 pm, the stock traded at ₹716.05.
Shares saw sell quantity outnumber buy quantity at the time of writing, with 23,12,258 shares on the sell side compared with 17,69,414 shares on the buy side.
In the pre-open session, it traded at ₹734 level.
HDFC Bank shares in focus
Trading data
The traded volume of the stock was 309.22 lakh, with traded value at ₹2,216.60 crore at the time of writing. The total market capitalisation declined to ₹ 11.03 lakh crore, while the adjusted P/E ratio was 13.99.
The stock’s absolute returns for a week dipped 0.58 per cent, while returns for one month were down 2.53 per cent.
US class action
Reports suggest that the private lender bank faces a class-action lawsuit in New York alleging that the bank violated American securities laws, resulting in losses to investors.
An HDFC Bank investor filed a securities fraud class-action complaint on August 13, 2026, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against the lender. It seeks represent investors who purchased or acquired HDFC securities between July 17, 2023, and May 26, 2026.
HDFC Bank responds
HDFC Bank has reportedly rejected the US shareholder class-action lawsuit as “without merit” and said it intends to vigorously defend itself. According to reports, the bank said such shareholder lawsuits are “incredibly common” in the US after a company experiences a stock drop, adding that many US-listed companies routinely defend such cases each year.
“The Bank believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself,” it said.
What the lawsuit alleges
The lawsuit was filed by Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP (GPWR)t. The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about HDFC Bank’s business, operations and prospects.
The complaint specifically alleges that HDFC Bank camouflaged payments as marketing expenditure to pay higher interest to a state firm in order to induce deposits. It further alleges that these activities were approved by senior management.
The lawsuit also alleges that the activities likely violated regulations and HDFC Bank’s own policies, including policies prohibiting payments that could constitute improper inducement.
According to the law firm, the complaint alleges that the activities resulted in HDFC Bank’s interest income and operating expenses being overstated. It further alleges that the defendants’ positive statements about the company’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.
The law firm said that on March 18, 2026, during US market hours, HDFC filed a letter with the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange of India Limited reporting the resignation of Atanu Chakraborty from his roles as part-time Chairman and Independent Director of HDFC.
According to the law firm, the company’s letter attached Chakraborty’s resignation letter, which stated that certain happenings and practices within the bank that he had observed over the previous two years were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics, and that this was the basis for his decision.
The law firm said HDFC’s American Depositary Shares (ADS) fell $2.09, or 7.28 per cent, to close at $26.62 per share on March 18, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The firm also noted the report claiming HDFC Bank had made covert payments of approximately ₹45 crore, or approximately $4.7 million, to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) to induce MSRDC to make large deposits with the bank.
According to the report cited by the law firm, HDFC Bank offered MSRDC 6.01 per cent interest, a 2.51 per cent markup over the interest offered to other savings accounts. The markup was allegedly paid by disguising it as sponsorship payments for a road safety awareness campaign run by MSRDC.
The law firm further said the report stated that an internal probe in March and April 2026 concluded that over ten top officials bore responsibility, including HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan.
The information provided does not include HDFC Bank’s response to these allegations.
Separately, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP alerted HDFC Bank’s stockholders of securities class action.
Analyst view
Abhinav Tiwari, Research Analyst at Bonanza, said HDFC Bank’s recent weakness should be viewed in the context of two separate legal matters in the US and overseas, rather than as a reaction to a single court hearing.
Tiwari noted that Jwalant Natvarlal Soneji filed a securities class-action complaint against HDFC Bank in the US on August 13, covering investors who purchased HDFC securities between July 17, 2023 and May 26, 2026. He said there has been no court hearing so far, with October 13, 2026 being the next key procedural date for investors to apply to become lead plaintiff.
On the MSRDC matter, Tiwari said HDFC Bank has maintained that the US shareholder lawsuit is without merit and that it intends to vigorously defend itself. He added that the filing remains an allegation and should not be interpreted as a finding of wrongdoing by the court.
Tiwari also pointed out that HDFC Bank completed its internal review of the MSRDC matter on July 23 and imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty each on MD & CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan, CFO Srinivasan Vaidyanathan and retail assets head Arvind Vohra. According to him, the bank concluded that the matter involved business overreach rather than bad intentions.
The second issue involves more than 75 investors with over $13.5 million of principal invested in Carlisle’s Luxembourg Life Fund through HDFC Bank’s Dubai operations. Tiwari said investors are reportedly consolidating complaints and considering legal action, including approaches to the PMO, RBI and Central Bank of Bahrain, while some investors have already complained to the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA).
He said the matter warrants attention because of its potential multi-jurisdictional regulatory angle and follows earlier DFSA action against HDFC Bank’s DIFC branch in 2025 over alleged mis-selling of Credit Suisse AT1 bonds. HDFC Bank, however, maintains that it only facilitated the investments and has found no instance of mis-selling.