Byju's goes to war: $2.5 billion lawsuit brewing against Glas Trust; here's what the matter is about
Byju's founders Byju Raveendran and Divya Gokulnath are preparing a $2.5 billion lawsuit in India and overseas as the edtech giant battles insolvency proceedings and a legal dispute with Glas Trust, trustee for Term Loan B lenders.
According to their legal counsel, the planned legal action will be pursued both in India and internationally, targeting those who have allegedly harmed their reputation and business interests, including their edtech company Think & Learn.
In a statement issued on Thursday by Lazareff Le Bars Eurl, Senior Litigation Advisor J Michael McNutt said, "Byju's founders reserve all rights to bring actions against those parties that have caused damage to them personally and their businesses, including Think & Learn.
The conduct before the Courts by Alpha, Glas Trust and its counsel has been reprehensible and improper in our view. We reserve the right to use all legal means to obtain justice for Byju's founders.
'
Glas Trust is the trustee representing lenders to whom Byju's owes $1.2 billion. However, the founders have contested the trustee's claims and challenged its authority. According to them, Glas Trust only represents 17.38% of the voting rights of the consortium of lenders.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
No annual fees for life
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
The founders have already filed claims in India against Glas Trust and a former subsidiary of Think & Learn, which Glas now claims to control. Additional legal action is also being prepared in other jurisdictions. The lawsuits are expected to seek damages of no less than $2.5 billion.
Byju's is currently undergoing insolvency proceedings initiated by Glas Trust. Though the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had earlier dismissed the case in an appeal filed by the BCCI, Glas Trust approached the Supreme Court, which allowed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) to continue.
Byju's founders are contesting the insolvency case and have filed a plea seeking the removal of the Interim Resolution Professional, alleging a conflict of interest due to links with consultancy firm EY, which is also connected to Glas Trust.
Meanwhile, Glas Trust has gained control of Byju's Alpha, a special-purpose financing vehicle created to receive Term Loan B funds. Byju's Alpha has filed a lawsuit against Raveendran, Gokulnath, and senior executive Anita Kishore, accusing them of executing a scheme to hide and misappropriate $533 million of loan proceeds.
The founders' counsel has clarified that no court, either in India or the US, has ordered the payment of any amount by Raveendran or Gokulnath to Think & Learn or its affiliates.
Raveendran is currently involved in legal proceedings in a Delaware court, which began in April 2025, but has challenged the court's jurisdiction. He has denied all allegations and is actively defending himself. He is also seeking reconsideration of a civil contempt order issued on July 7, 2025, related to the disclosure of certain information, which he claims is already under review in Indian courts.
"That Civil Contempt Order concerns requests for information that are duplicative of matters already before the Indian Courts. Byju and his counsel are addressing those matters before the Indian Courts as well. Byju and his counsel are evaluating how to address that Order and reserve all rights," the statement said.
Stay informed with the latest
business
news, updates on
bank holidays
and
public holidays
.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Real estate fraud: Absconding promoters of Universal Buildwell arrested
1 2 Chandigarh: The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Gurugram Zonal Office, on Wednesday claimed to have arrested Raman Puri, Varun Puri and Vikram Puri – promoters and former directors of M/s Universal Buildwell Pvt Ltd – under the prevention of Money Laundering Act in a case related to alleged real estate fraud. The arrested accused, apprehended Tuesday night, were absconding for more than seven years and were declared proclaimed offenders by various courts in predicate matters. They were apprehended by the Delhi Police. The special PMLA court in Gurugram on Wednesday remanded the trio into ED custody until July 29. The ED had initiated an investigation into the case based on more than 30 FIRs registered under various sections of the IPC across Delhi NCR against M/s Universal Buildwell Pvt Ltd, Raman Puri, Vikram Puri, and Varun Puri for failing to complete real estate projects on time and cheating the homebuyers/investors of their hard-earned money. The company was taken to the CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process), which resulted in a resolution plan for homebuyers/other financial contributors being accepted and NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) ordering some assets to be delivered to the homebuyers, who were the financial creditors, and the remaining assets to be liquidated. Most of the homebuyers had invested in the project before 2010. The case stems from the fraudulent mobilisation of homebuyers/investors' funds by the accused persons through Universal Buildwell Pvt Ltd, based on false promises of completing the project by 2010 and also promising assured returns in commercial projects. The arrested persons are also accused of cheating various financial institutions through forgery and fraud. They reportedly transferred some assets at negligible rates, oversold existing inventory, and executed forged agreements for their personal benefits. In this matter, data collected from the resolution professional revealed that the company, through their accused promoters, collected more than Rs 1,000 crore over 12 years on eight different projects in Gurugram and Faridabad, namely Universal Trade Tower, Universal Greens, Universal Business Park, Aura, Universal Square, Market Square, The Pavilion, and Universal Prime. They allegedly utilised only part of the funds for development and siphoned off the funds to acquire lands and other assets for their personal gains through criminal misappropriation, cheating, forgery, and fraud.
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
ED arrests three in ₹1,000 crore real estate fraud case
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has arrested three persons in connection with an alleged real estate fraud involving Universal Buildwell Private Limited. The accused - Raman Puri, Varun Puri and Vikram Puri - are promoters and former directors of Universal Buildwell. According to the agency, they had been 'absconding from court summons for more than seven years and were declared proclaimed offenders by various courts in predicate matters and were subsequently apprehended by the Delhi police'. The ED's investigation is based on over 30 first information reports (FIRs) registered against the company and its associates for allegedly failing to complete several real estate projects on time and for cheating homebuyers and investors. The company was taken through Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings, which culminated in a resolution plan. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) directed that some assets be handed over to the homebuyers, while the rest were to be liquidated. Most of the homebuyers had reportedly invested their funds before 2010. 'The case stems from the fraudulent mobilisation of homebuyers/investors funds by the accused persons through Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., based on false promises of completing the project by 2010 and also promised assured returns in commercial projects,' the ED said. According to the agency, data provided by the resolution professional showed that the company, through its promoters, had collected more than ₹1,000 crore over 12 years across eight projects in Gurugram and Faridabad. These projects include Universal Trade Tower, Universal Greens, Universal Business Park, Aura, Universal Square, Market Square, The Pavillion and Universal Prime. The ED has alleged that only a portion of the collected funds was used for development, while the remaining amounts were diverted for acquiring land and other assets for personal gain.
New Indian Express
17 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel: A request for resolution process
The recent controversial judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd.('Bhushan Steel') ignited a lot of debate on the financial implications caused by the court's invalidation of a resolution plan that was approved in 2019 and even partially executed by JSW Steel – the successful resolution applicant. While the order initiating liquidation against corporate debtor – Bhushan Power & Steel has currently been stayed by the Supreme Court, the far reaching effects of the judgement has been critiqued extensively. The present piece, however, seeks to address a different issue – the impact of the serious procedural violations that have been highlighted in the Bhushan Steel judgment on the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC'). Serious procedural missteps In Bhushan Steel, the Court ruled that the process violated statutory deadlines under Section 12 of the IBC, specifically the 330-day cap, and that the absence of an independent verification of the Section 29A compliance and certain delays in creditor payments rendered the plan fundamentally flawed. As a result, the company was ordered into liquidation—a decision that came not just after judicial approval but after the plan was substantially implemented. The IBC's language in Sections 30 and 31 envisions a linear progression from creditor consensus to judicial approval and then to implementation. It is, however, unclear as to how the plan even passed the muster of the resolution professional and creditors when such fundamental violations were prevalent in the plan approval process. One of the serious procedural misstep that was highlighted by the court was the absence of resolution professional's independent examination of JSW's related party status. The court highlighted that the resolution professional's failure to independently examine the Section 29A compliance goes to the 'root of the matter'. The above procedural lapses are indicative of the poor diligence undertaken both by the resolution professional as well as the creditors. Similarly, it is inconceivable as to how the gross violation of the mandatory 330-day timeline in conclusion of the CIRP proceedings was overlooked both by the NCLT and the resolution professional and creditors. Adherence to procedural rigour As Late Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously remarked, 'Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration or justice.' Now, the obvious arguments against the above procedural violations are that, though significant, they ought not to be considered to the detriment of the approved resolution plan in Bhushan Steel, especially since it interferes with the 'commercial wisdom' of the creditors. These arguments, undoubtedly, merit consideration, especially in a case such as Bhushan Steel where the sums involved are enormous. However, key questions arise: Can these violations be brushed aside solely because the CoC exercised its commercial wisdom? Would the violations have been viewed differently if they had been thoroughly considered by the Adjudicating Authority at the first stage of approval? Should the Court have remitted the matter for reconsideration instead of ordering liquidation? The law is now well settled that the deference to the commercial wisdom of the creditors is not absolute, and they can be interfered with when the decisions are 'wholly capricious, arbitrary, irrational and de hors the provisions of the statute or the Rules'. The procedural violations in Bhushan Steel, especially the resolution professional's failure to independently verify the Section 29A eligibility/ineligibility and the breach of 330-day timeline, could plausibly be interpreted as the commercial wisdom being exercised 'de hors the provisions of the statute or the Rules'. The mandatory context under which these procedural safeguards are legislatively designed ought not to be disregarded since it would set a dangerous precedent in other plan approval cases. Any instance of a callous approach by the resolution professional and creditors in the plan approval process could be brushed aside under the garb of the creditors having exercised commercial wisdom. Moreover, the insolvency proceeding being a proceeding in rem, the violations could also operate to the detriment of other stakeholders in the process. Striking a balance The IBC was crafted with the promise of delivering time-bound resolutions to distressed corporate debtors. But nearly a decade on, that aspiration is still being tested. Although the ruling in Bhushan Steel highlights a deep fragility in India's insolvency architecture, i.e., the lack of finality, even after approval and execution, it also exposes the deeper systemic issues in the resolution plan approval process itself. It cannot be gainsaid that the IBC must pivot away from excessive formalism and proceed towards commercially sound closure. At first blush, the breach of the 330-day timeline in conclusion of the CIRP proceedings in Bhushan Steel does not seem like a serious issue when pitted against the larger picture of the Bhushan Steel being revived. If one were to draw an analogy of section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which deals with extension of timeline for conclusion of arbitral proceedings, the law has been well settled that awards passed beyond the arbitral mandate are void. Similarly, if resolution plans were to be approved beyond the statutory timelines and without any formal approval of extension, it not only questions the objective of IBC of providing time-bound resolutions but it also accords an excessive weightage to the commercial wisdom which could be equally detrimental to other stakeholders. The Bhushan Steel judgment should not be remembered as an isolated incident but as a call to action. India's insolvency ecosystem must certainly evolve towards being a transformative tool for corporate recovery rather than a procedural labyrinth. At the same time, the cloak of 'commercial wisdom' ought not to be overlooked by the NCLT while evaluating a resolution plan. (The author is Advocate, Madras High Court)
