Government News | Latest news on eGovernance, Digital India, Smart Cities | ET Government : ETGovernment.com
BENGALURU: The dramatic decline of BYJU’S, once India’s most valuable EdTech startup, has raised serious concerns over corporate governance and financial manipulation. A whistleblower from Ernst & Young (EY) has alleged that foreign creditors, along with certain Indian collaborators, orchestrated a plan to take control of the company.
Documents, purportedly leaked by the whistleblower, suggest that key decisions regarding BYJU’S insolvency process may have been pre-determined even before bankruptcy proceedings formally began. These allegations, if proven, could have significant implications for India’s startup ecosystem and corporate governance frameworks, expert opine.
The Orchestrated Takeover: A Precise Timeline
January 18, 2024: Six months before any insolvency proceedings, GLAS Trust had already designated EY’s Dinkar Venkatasubramanian as their chosen Resolution Professional. The whistleblower’s evidence includes a signed document from Dinkar explicitly agreeing to be GLAS’s nominee, proving the outcome was predetermined long before any legitimate financial distress.
July 16, 2024: NCLT admits BYJU’S into insolvency based on BCCI petition with Pankaj Srivastava appointed as Interim Resolution Professional.
July 18, 2024: Within just 48 hours of his appointment, Srivastava contacts Dinkar requesting “support services.” The whistleblower provides the actual email showing Srivastava specifically marking GLAS’s pre-selected representative.
July 20, 2024: EY submits official disclosures claiming “NIL” prior relationships with BYJU’S or GLAS – a falsification directly contradicted by EY’s own social media posts about their previous work with the company.
July 23, 2024: In what the whistleblower describes as “an astonishing breach of protocol,” Srivastava shares credentials of the official IRP email (ip.byjus@outlook.com) with three EY employees – Lokesh Gupta, Rahul Agrawal, and Renu Kochar – effectively surrendering control of all communications to the team working with foreign creditors.
July 31, 2024: Riju Ravindran (Byju’s brother) settles all pending dues with BCCI – an action that should have immediately terminated the insolvency proceedings according to law.
August 2, 2024: NCLAT sets aside the NCLT insolvency order based on the settlement, officially terminating CIRP proceedings.August 14, 2024: Supreme Court stays NCLAT order (received by IRP on August 17), technically resuming proceedings but not invalidating the settlement.
August 16, 2024: BCCI submits Form FA (withdrawal form) to Srivastava. Under legal requirements, the IRP was obligated to submit this withdrawal to NCLT within three days – he did not.
August 21, 2024: Instead of filing the mandatory withdrawal, Srivastava constitutes a Committee of Creditors including GLAS. The whistleblower states: “GLAS by luring Pankaj Srivastava with money, convinced him to simply write back to the BCCI and delay the process, with a clear intent to stall the CIRP withdrawal.”
August 27, 2024: ICICI Bank withdraws from CoC stating “ICICI has no claims against the corporate debtor.” The whistleblower reveals ICICI was added purely to create false legitimacy, quoting Dinkar: “If we add ICICI to the committee, it will look really credible.”
September 2, 2024: Evidence of document backdating discovered, with metadata showing a letter created September 2 but fraudulently dated September 1.
February 11, 2025: CoC appoints Shailesh Ajmera to replace Srivastava. The whistleblower notes: “Ajmera works in the same EY team as Dinkar; effectively it’s still Dinkar who will run the show.”
Claims of Pre-Determined Insolvency Process
According to the whistleblower, GLAS Trust, representing foreign lenders, had allegedly selected EY’s Dinkar Venkatasubramanian months before the insolvency process began, raising concerns about the neutrality of the proceedings. It is claimed that within 48 hours of his appointment as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on July 16, 2024, Pankaj Srivastava transferred control of BYJU’S insolvency process to EY’s team, the same team allegedly pre-selected by creditors.
Official declarations by EY reportedly stated “NIL prior relationships” with BYJU’S and GLAS. However, social media posts and internal documents suggest that EY had previously worked with BYJU’S, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Legal experts reviewing these claims have indicated that, if true, such actions could raise serious ethical and legal concerns regarding the conduct of the insolvency process. However, the matter remains under review, and no final conclusions have been drawn by the authorities.
Documented Evidence of Criminal Conduct
The whistleblower provides multiple pieces of concrete evidence establishing the following:
Perjury: EY’s signed declaration claiming “NIL” association with BYJU’S, directly contradicted by their own Twitter posts from April 7, 2021 stating: “EY has successfully advised BYJU’S (world’s leading ed-tech company) in its strategic partnership with Aakash Educational Services Limited.”
Breach of Trust: “Proof 4” shows the July 23rd email where IRP Srivastava shared official email credentials with EY employees, with the whistleblower stating: “Since then, the account ip.byjus@outlook.com has been run by EY India employees, namely Lokesh Gupta, Rahul Agrawal and Renu Kochar.”
Criminal Conspiracy: “Proof 7” reveals communications showing EY employees giving direct instructions to the IRP’s legal team: “Normally, the IRP is supposed to instruct and take the help of an IPE firm (EY) but in this case, it was GLAS (in the guise of EY through Dinkar) instructing, and commanding the IRP on what to do!”
Callous Disregard: The whistleblower witnessed senior EY team members “laugh at the pleas that many Byju employees made in their emails” as thousands of teachers desperately sought their unpaid salaries.
Evidence Tampering: “Proof 9” shows the IRP accidentally copied Dinkar on an email establishing the CoC, revealing behind-the-scenes manipulation that “would have almost gone unseen but Pankaj sent an email for the first COC meeting by marking Dinkar (Clearly by mistake!)”
Alleged Delays in Settlement Process
Another major claim is that BYJU’S had fully settled its dues to the BCCI on July 31, 2024, which, under normal procedures, should have led to the withdrawal of insolvency proceedings. However, the IRP allegedly delayed filing the required withdrawal documents, allowing time for the formation of a Committee of Creditors (CoC) and enabling foreign creditors to retain control of the company.
The whistleblower claims this delay was not accidental but an intentional act to continue the insolvency process despite the original debt being settled. However, no legal ruling has confirmed this allegation, and the matter is still under scrutiny.
The Resolution Professional’s own communications confirm the whistleblower’s allegations. In an email explaining the process delays, Pankaj Srivastava admits that despite BCCI’s settlement with the promoters and the NCLAT order terminating proceedings on August 2, he “proceeded with formation of Committee of Creditors (CoC)” after proceedings resumed on August 21.
This critical admission aligns perfectly with the whistleblower’s evidence showing that despite receiving BCCI’s Form FA on August 16, Srivastava deliberately bypassed the settlement opportunity.
The whistleblower’s evidence reveals why GLAS was actively blocking these payments through court orders, creating financial distress that would weaken the company from within. The RP’s explanation inadvertently confirms the orchestrated pattern of delay, with CoC meetings consistently postponed through coordinated legal maneuvers exactly as the whistleblower described.
Impact on Employees and Students
As the insolvency process unfolded, thousands of BYJU’S employees—including teachers—allegedly faced salary delays, despite claims that the company had sufficient funds. The whistleblower asserts that efforts were made to block salary payments through legal actions, exacerbating the financial distress of employees.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), in its January 29th order, took note of these concerns, stating that the IRP’s actions constituted “an act of misinformation and misleading this Tribunal.” The tribunal further noted that his conduct was “not fit and proper as expected from an officer of the Tribunal” and recommended disciplinary proceedings and an investigation. However, further legal proceedings are required to determine the full extent of responsibility and potential wrongdoing.
Broader Concerns for India’s Startup Ecosystem
Industry experts warn that if these allegations hold true, they could set a dangerous precedent for India’s startup ecosystem. Some investors and analysts argue that the case highlights potential loopholes in India’s insolvency laws that could be exploited by foreign creditors to take control of financially distressed companies.
A leading tech investor, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated: “If successful Indian startups can be systematically taken over through financial and legal maneuvers, it raises serious questions about India’s ability to protect its homegrown enterprises.”
Call for Investigation and Legal Clarity
With these allegations now in the public domain, there is a growing demand for a thorough investigation to determine:
- Whether the insolvency process followed legal protocols
- If there were any conflicts of interest in the appointment of key decision-makers
- Whether any individuals deliberately misled the tribunal
- If the insolvency process was weaponized for a hostile takeover
Legal experts stress that only a comprehensive judicial review can establish the truth behind these claims. The outcome of ongoing legal proceedings will determine whether corrective measures are needed to strengthen India’s corporate governance frameworks.
For Byju Raveendran, the founder who built BYJU’S into a global education brand, these revelations could offer vindication if they confirm that his company’s downfall was not solely due to business mismanagement but external financial pressures. However, until the courts deliver a final ruling, these remain allegations and not established facts.
Legal Disclaimer: This report is based on available documents, media reports, and whistleblower claims. The claims mentioned are still under legal consideration, and no final judicial ruling has been made. It is advised to view this information in the context of ongoing legal proceedings.
#Byjus #Downfall #Foreign #conspiracy #Indias #biggest #EdTech #collapse #exposed #whistleblower #Government