A new filing in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court has alleged that the missing $533 million from Byju’s Alpha — an entity now controlled by the edtech firm’s Term Loan B (TLB) lenders — was “round-tripped right back to Byju Raveendran and his affiliates.”
However, the founders of Think and Learn, the parent company of Byju’s, have strongly denied the claims, according to a November 17 statement cited by various media reports.
The allegations emerged as Byju’s Alpha sought court approval for a settlement with OCI Limited, the UK-based procurement firm that had received most of the disputed funds.
As part of the proposed settlement, OCI founder Oliver Chapman submitted a sworn declaration detailing “down to the cent” how the funds were handled after reaching OCI.
The filing claims the money was not used to procure tablets, advertising services, or any legitimate commercial purpose for Think & Learn, contrary to what founder Byju Raveendran had stated in an earlier court declaration filed in 2024.
The document further asserts that Chapman’s review found the $533 million was “clandestinely removed” in 2022 and routed through opaque transactions to Byju’s Global Pte Ltd in Singapore — a corporate entity owned by Raveendran.
According to reports, it characterises the movement of funds as “personal enrichment,” accusing Raveendran and former OCI representative Rupin Banker of misusing OCI to defraud the debtor and its creditors.
In response, Byju’s founders said they categorically reject the accusations made by GLAS Trust in the Delaware filing, calling Chapman’s testimony selective, incomplete, and unsupported by evidence.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed pleas filed by the BCCI and Riju Raveendran — brother of Byju Raveendran — seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against Byju’s and to consider the settlement between the beleaguered edtech company and the BCCI.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadeven refused to interfere with the April 17 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had ruled that since the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of Committee of Creditors (CoC), it required the approval of the lender’s body under the provisions of section 12 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
