&w=3840&q=100)
Aakash accuses EY of conflict of interest, seeks Byju's-linked records
Aakash Educational Services Ltd (AESL) has accused EY of conflict of interest and professional misconduct in the context of its ongoing legal dispute involving Byju's.
The dispute primarily concerns governance and control issues at AESL following the failed acquisition by Byju's.
In a strongly worded letter dated 17 May 2025, AESL's legal team alleged that EY acted in a dual capacity, offering advisory services to both AESL and Byju's, despite being fully aware of their intertwined relationship.
AESL described EY's conduct as 'unethical and legally untenable' and demanded that the firm cease all involvement and preserve all communication records for potential legal proceedings.
Manipal Group also raises red flags
CrestLaw Partners, representing the Manipal Group—a significant stakeholder in AESL—also questioned EY's role in advising the group on matters involving tax, regulatory compliance, and accounting.
In a letter dated 21 May, CrestLaw wrote: 'We would further like to point out that, as majority shareholder in AESL, our client has been apprised that there are considerable correspondences in the records of AESL, which show that EY was a constant factor, in both operations and advice rendered to Mr Byju Raveendran /Byju's/AESL/Aakash Choudhry/Blackstone/our clients, the Manipal Group.'
It added: 'Your association in any manner, through anyone, in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is a matter of considerable concern, regret and amounts to misconduct.'
EY denies allegations
In response, EY told PTI: 'We refute all allegations. We treat matters of client confidentiality and conflict with utmost seriousness. Therefore, we cannot comment further on this matter.'
Legal warning from AESL
AESL's legal head Sanjay Garg stressed the significance of the issue: 'We have sufficient material in our possession to submit before any adjudicating/regulatory authority to suggest that any involvement in the CIRP process would conflict with independent professional functions to be performed by entities such as you.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
20 hours ago
- Mint
Relief for Reliance Infra as NCLAT puts bankruptcy proceedings on hold
In a relief to Reliance Infrastructure, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday stayed insolvency proceedings against the company that were initiated by IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd over an alleged default of ₹ 88 crore. The NCLAT bench, comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), paused the order of the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had admitted the insolvency plea against the company on 30 May 2025, following a petition by IDBI Trusteeship. The Anil Ambani-led Reliance Infrastructure also announced the NCLAT order in its regulatory filing: "In the appeal filed, the NCLAT today has suspended the Order dated May 30, 2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai in case no. C.P. (IB)/624(MB)2022, admitting the company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process," the company stated. The case started back in April 2022, when IDBI Trusteeship filed a petition for insolvency proceedings, claiming Reliance Infrastructure had defaulted on ₹ 88.68 crore as of 28 August 2018, plus interest. The issue was related to 10 invoices raised by Dhursar Solar Power Private Ltd (DSPPL) for supplying solar energy. IDBI Trusteeship, as DSPPL's security trustee, sought payments from Reliance Infrastructure. In its 30 May order, the NCLT noted that both parties had tried to settle the matter. But it found that IDBI Trusteeship had proven the debt was due and that Reliance Infrastructure was in default. The NCLT appointed Tehseen Fatima Khatri as interim resolution professional (IRP) to oversee the company. It also rejected Reliance Infrastructure's request to pause the insolvency process or to stop the IRP from taking charge. 'The IBC does not have any rule to stay an order once the CIRP is started,' the tribunal noted. Reliance Infrastructure later announced in a regulatory filing that it had fully paid ₹ 92.68 crore to Dhursar Solar Power Private Ltd as per the energy agreement. The company argued that the NCLT order was no longer valid since it had already cleared its dues. The company said it would challenge the NCLT order at the NCLAT, which ultimately stayed the insolvency order. Earlier, Reliance Infrastructure said it had reduced its standalone net debt to zero, cutting about ₹ 3,300 crore in FY25. The firm, which works in power, metro, roads and defence sectors, said this move strengthens its finances and positions it for future growth.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20 hours ago
- Business Standard
NCLAT suspends insolvency proceedings against Reliance Infrastructure
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has suspended the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, admitting Reliance Infrastructure (R-Infra) into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the company informed the stock exchanges on Wednesday. In 2022, IDBI Trusteeship Services (operational creditor), a trusteeship company jointly promoted by IDBI Bank, LIC, and GIC of India, had filed a plea with the NCLT to start insolvency proceedings against R-Infra over a default of ₹88.68 crore (excluding interest). Dhursar Solar Power Private Limited (DSPPL) supplied solar energy to R-Infra under an energy purchase agreement signed in 2011. However, R-Infra defaulted on payments for 10 invoices issued between 2017 and 2018. IDBI Trusteeship Services acted as DSPPL's security trustee. DSPPL is a Mumbai-based private company with solar power plants located in Dhursar, Rajasthan. R-Infra argued that the application was barred by limitation and that the invoices did not comply with the energy purchase agreement, and hence were not valid for operational debt claims. However, in its order dated May 30, 2025, the special bench of the NCLT admitted IDBI Trusteeship Services' plea to initiate CIRP. R-Infra claimed it had made full payment of ₹92.68 crore to DSPPL towards the tariff claim under the agreement and filed an appeal before the NCLAT seeking withdrawal of the order.
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Time of India
EVs boost German auto sales, Tesla falls again
A jump in electric car sales helped give a slight boost to Germany's troubled auto market last month, official data showed Wednesday, although Elon Musk's Tesla fared poorly again. A total of 239,297 new vehicles were registered in May in Europe's top car market, 1.2 percent more than the same month last year, the KBA federal transport authority said. The number of electric vehicles (EVs) registered jumped 45 percent, as the segment continues a tentative recovery following a downturn last year triggered by the removal of government subsidies. This offset declines for petrol and diesel vehicle sales. But electric car maker Tesla, which has suffered across Europe due to anger that Musk played a role as a key advisor to US President Donald Trump, saw its sales slide again, this time by 36 percent. The US billionaire has faced particular hostility in Germany for backing the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) before February's general election. Musk left his role as an advisor to Trump last week, although it is not yet clear what impact this could have on Tesla's fortunes. Registrations of BYD cars jumped more than 800 percent from a year earlier, to nearly 1,860 vehicles, although the Chinese EV giant is just beginning to make inroads in Germany. EY analyst Constantin Gall said many EV manufacturers had "significantly reduced the price difference between combustion engines and comparable electric vehicles, and are also offering very attractive financing or leasing conditions for electric cars". The German auto market has performed weakly in recent years, and is still about 28 percent below pre-pandemic levels, according to EY. "The market is moving sideways and not advancing -- neither in Germany nor in Europe," said Gall.
