&w=3840&q=100)
Aakash seeks to implead EY in Byju's case, cites conflict, misconduct
In an impleadment application filed on 1 June, AESL has asked the tribunal to either dismiss the company petition filed by Byju's—under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, alleging oppression and mismanagement—or make EY LLP and its partner Ajay Shah respondents to the case.
AESL alleges that EY, which has been involved in a wide range of strategic, financial and compliance-related advisory services for the company, is now acting against it through Shailendra Ajmera, the Resolution Professional (RP) of Byju's, who is also a senior EY functionary.
'This is a classic case of conflict of interest and abuse of process,' said the application. 'The very transactions now being challenged in the petition—such as the issuance and conversion of non-convertible debentures (NCDs), equity restructuring and internal governance matters—were structured and overseen by EY.'
According to the filing, EY advised on the valuation and structuring of NCDs issued to Davidson Kempner. It also advised on tax and regulatory aspects of equity conversion to the Manipal Group. Additionally, EY was involved in internal board-level decisions and corporate strategy at AESL as recently as October 2024.
'The RP has suppressed material facts, has no locus standi to file this petition under the Companies Act, and is acting in excess of his powers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,' AESL said in the filing.
AESL has also warned that it may escalate the matter to regulators, including the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, alleging that Ajmera's position as RP is 'severely compromised'.
The move comes just days after the RP wrote to the AESL board seeking clarity on the independence and nomination status of its directors, signalling a broader governance challenge in the ongoing tussle.
What's at stake
The fight over Aakash, which Byju's acquired in a $1 billion deal in 2021, has become a flashpoint in the edtech giant's ongoing financial and legal troubles. Manipal Group, which took over a significant stake by converting debt into equity, now controls the board of AESL.
With this filing, AESL is preparing for a full-blown legal and reputational offensive—challenging both the admissibility of Byju's petition and the professional neutrality of the advisers involved. Both EY and the Resolution Professional are yet to file a formal reply to the impleadment request.
"The matter is sub-judice, and therefore we cannot offer any further comment at this time. However, we refute the allegations and will defend any such legal action vigorously," an EY spokesperson told Business Standard on Tuesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
India's bankruptcy law gets another reboot but will it work this time?
To its credit, the government has been constantly working to improve the code, and the latest Bill is a step in the right direction Business Standard Editorial Comment Listen to This Article Union Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitharaman on Tuesday introduced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha, paving the way for further improvement in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Bill has been sent to a select committee of Parliament for deliberation. This is the seventh time the IBC is being amended, and the Bill has been awaited for some time. Various stakeholders and policy analysts have criticised the IBC for falling short of expectations, primarily due to delays. The cases that yielded a resolution plan by the end of
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Sebi drafts rewrite of 30-year-old broker rules for a tech-first market
The Securities and Exchange Board of India on Wednesday proposed a comprehensive rewrite of its 30-year-old Stock Brokers Regulations to simplify compliance and align the rules with today's tech-driven markets. The capital markets regulator has invited public comments until 3 September. The draft regulation, meant to replace the 1992 framework, consolidates years of circulars into the main regulations and harmonizes provisions with newer laws like the Companies Act, 2013. The 1992 regulations were built for a market of physical paperwork, slower settlements, and fewer retail participants. Sebi's working group recommended a clearer, streamlined framework that reflects electronic trading, rapid settlement cycles and the scale of modern retail investing. This proposal is in line with the Sebi chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey's emphasis on optimizing regulations. The Association of National Exchanges Members of India (ANMI) informed Mint that it is reviewing the proposals and will send in its comments to Sebi in due course of time. In its paper, Sebi has introduced formal definitions for key participants and practices, such as algorithmic trading, execution-only platforms for direct mutual fund transactions and proprietary trading, to keep the rules technology-neutral. The consultation paper states that record-keeping can be done in electronic form across the board, acknowledging the end of physical share delivery and easing archival burdens. It suggested that stock brokers can route key intimations and filings through exchanges and outdated registers tied to broker-to-broker dealings within the same exchange will be eliminated. The index and forms of the regulations have also been cleaned up to remove the defunct sub-broker category and duplicative disclosures, with the 'fit and proper' declarations folded into application forms. Sebi has proposed that brokerages that are structured as companies must have at least one designated director resident in India for 182 days in a financial year to anchor accountability. Additionally, material changes in information provided at registration would need prompt intimation through the stock exchanges where the broker is a member. To be clear, Sebi proposed that any change in control of a brokerage will require prior Board approval, routed through one of the stock exchanges where the broker is a member. Legal experts who represent brokers said this framework centralizes the approval process, reduces procedural ambiguity and strengthens regulatory supervision over broker governance. 'This centralized approval framework enhances supervisory clarity and investor protection by tightening governance around ownership transitions,' said Ketan Mukhija, senior partner at Burgeon Law. Others said that informing about change of control to the Board and exchanges is an important change, as the information will protect the clients of the broking companies. 'The intent is to align the procedure, rules and regulations for a transparent environment. Information regarding any material change from information already submitted at the time of registration will have to be submitted to the Board as well,' said Nirali Mehta, partner at Mindspright Legal. The draft codifies core duties that had been set out through circulars. Those include strict segregation and upstreaming of client funds and collateral, robust KYC and order evidence, confidentiality of client data, and participation in Sebi's Online Dispute Resolution platform, among others. Sebi has specified that the 'Qualified Stock Broker' (QSB) tag will be assigned using five measurable parameters: active clients, client assets, trading volumes, end-of-day client margin obligations, and proprietary volumes. The regulator has proposed dropping qualitative scores on compliance and grievance redressal as entry criteria. Along with the regulator, the exchanges, clearing corporations, and depositories would now have explicit powers to conduct inspections, including joint inspections to avoid duplication. Sebi also proposed a calibrated power to relax strict enforcement in limited circumstances, such as technical or procedural hardship, sector irrelevance, or broader factors beyond a class of persons' control, subject to reasoned orders. Aiming to modernize fee schedules, the regulator proposed removing archaic references from the 1990s and aligning collection through exchanges and recognized infrastructures, with the provision for interest levy for delays.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
IBBI amends CPE norms; in-person training mandatory for insolvency professionals from 2026
New Delhi: The IBBI on Wednesday amended its Continuing Professional Education (CPE) guidelines for insolvency professionals, introducing mandatory in-person learning requirements from 2026. As per the revised framework, IPs must complete a minimum of 30 credit hours of CPE every calendar year, except in the year of their registration. Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program The amendments prescribe that at least 40 per cent of total CPE credits be obtained through in-person programmes in 2026, rising to 50 per cent in 2027 and 60 per cent from 2028 onwards. The obligation will apply even if an "IP will undertake CPE even when his registration is suspended, or he has ceased to have an authorisation for assignment". CPE credits can be earned through various activities such as workshops, conferences, seminars, training programmes, refresher courses, certificate programmes, conventions, and symposia organised by IBBI, Insolvency Professional Agencies (IPAs) or other approved bodies. Live Events Additional credits may be obtained by publishing articles, delivering lectures, authoring books, or completing higher academic qualifications in relevant areas. The guidelines also mandate prior approval from the respective IPA before enrolling in CPE programmes conducted by entities other than IBBI or IPAs. IPAs have been directed to process such approvals diligently and in a time-bound manner. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), a key institution in implementing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, comes under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
