Byju's founders' threat of defamation case an attempt to distract from facts: Glas Trust
The counsel of Byju's founders, Byju Raveendran and Divya Gokulnath, on Thursday said they are gearing up to file an over $2.5 billion suit against Glas Trust and others for damage to their reputation and business. "Byju Raveendran's latest act of threatening defamation claims against GLAS Trust and the Term Loan B Lenders is a transparent attempt to distract from the facts, coming on the heels of a US federal court holding him in contempt. The fact of the matter is that every court to consider the issues has ruled against Raveendran and his cohorts," Glas Trust said.Glas Trust Company LLC is the trustee for lenders to whom Byju's owes $1.2 billion. Byju's founders have, however, contested Glas Trust claims.Glas Trust now controls Byju's Alpha, which was a special-purpose financing vehicle established by the edtech firm to receive Term Loan B funds.
Byju's Alpha has filed a lawsuit against Byju Raveendran, his co-founder and wife Divya Gokulnath, and his consigliere Anita Kishore, alleging that each of them co-orchestrated and executed a lawless scheme to conceal and steal $533 million of loan proceeds. Glas Trust said judgments exceeding $533 million have been entered against Raveendran's allies, "including for their fraudulent conduct"."Raveendran's brother was found by a Delaware federal court to be untruthful and one of the most incompetent directors in Delaware's history. A Delaware federal court stated its intention to make a criminal referral when Raveendran attempted to bribe a witness and had held Raveendran in contempt," Glas Trust alleged.The US lenders' agent said that it has at all times acted within its rights."Mr Raveendran's threats are desperate and meritless, and the irony of Mr Raveendran threatening to sue for defamation when he continues to unlawfully conceal what happened to the missing $533 million should be lost on no one," Glas Trust said.McNutt alleged that GLAS Trust continues to distract from the true situation in India."It is incorrect to claim that US Courts have ruled against Raveendran and his 'co-horts' on the relevant issues. The proceedings in Delaware against Byju have only just commenced, and Byju has not even submitted his response to the complaint," the counsel said.McNutt said Byju Raveendran has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing by any court, in any jurisdiction, and the contempt order against Byju is being contested.He said that the term 'co-horts' is misleading and offensive.McNutt alleged that the order against Think & Learn, its subsidiary and Byju Raveendran's brother (a director of Think & learn who is suspended due to bankruptcy in India) was without any legal representation.Glas Trust initiated legal proceedings against Byju's and its founders in US courts.The agent of US-based lenders also approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge the dismissal of the insolvency case against Byju's by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in an appeal filed by BCCI.The apex court ruled in favour of Glas Trust, and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) litigation against Byju's is going on.
Byju's founders are contesting the case and filed a plea to remove the Interim Resolution Professional, alleging his link with Glas Trust through the consultancy firm EY.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16 minutes ago
- Business Standard
NIA court declares Hizb chief Salahuddin a proclaimed offender under UAPA
An NIA court here on Friday declared Pakistan-based Hizbul Mujahideen chief Mohammad Yousuf Shah alias Syed Salahuddin a proclaimed offender under the UAP Act. The special designated court under NIA Act, Srinagar, issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of Shah, a resident of Soibugh, Badgam, in connection with serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Ranbir Penal Code. According to court records, a challan was filed alleging that the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 13 and 18 of the UA(P) Act and Section 505 of the RPC in Zakura police station. Despite a warrant being issued for his arrest, law enforcement authorities have reported that Salahuddin could not be found and is believed to have absconded or is deliberately concealing his whereabouts to evade arrest. In light of these circumstances, the court declared Salahuddin as absconding and issued a proclamation requiring his appearance before the court on or before August 30, to answer the charges framed against him. Failure to appear may lead to further legal action, including proceedings under Section 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to the attachment of property of an absconder. Srinagar Police has appealed to the public for any information on the whereabouts of Salahuddin and urged cooperation in the interest of justice and public safety. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
The Big ‘Mc' Feud: Here's why a Gujarat snack maker is suing McDonald's
McPatel Foods Private Limited has filed a civil suit against McDonald's Corporation before an Ahmedabad rural court. The Gujarat-based snack maker alleged that it has been receiving 'groundless threats' from the American fast-food chain due to its use of the mark 'McPatel.' The Indian snack maker filed the suit under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, aiming for an injunction to prevent McDonald's from initiating or threatening legal action over its use of the 'Mc' prefix in its corporate and product branding. The case is listed for hearing on July 28, 2025, Bar and Bench reported. The conflict began when McPatel Foods applied to register the mark 'McPatel' under Class 30 (covering bakery goods, snacks, noodles, confectionery, sauces and frozen foods) in March 2024. However, on August 27, 2024, McDonald's filed an objection before the Indian Trade Marks Registry against this application. In its notice of opposition, McDonald's alleged the following: Deceptive similarity: McDonald's claims that the 'McPatel' mark is deceptively similar to its 'Mc' and 'Mac' family of trademarks, including McDonald's, McFries, McChicken and others. Acquired distinctiveness: The 'Mc' prefix, according to McDonald's has gained distinctiveness globally since the 1970s, and since 1996 in India due to its widespread use. Global enforcement: McDonald's argues that its trademarks are registered in more than 100 countries, solely with an aim to protect against third-party use of 'Mc'-formative marks. Dominant element: The fast-food chain also argues that 'Patel' and 'Foods' are quite common, making 'Mc' the dominant and source-identifying element in 'McPatel'. Bad intention: McDonald's also alleged that McPatel adopted the mark in bad faith to benefit from McDonald's goodwill, leading to confusion and deception and of the brand's reputation. In its counter statement filed on October 29, 2024, McPatel Foods denied all allegations, asserting the following: Legitimate adoption: The Indian snack maker claimed that the mark was adopted from its registered corporate name and trading style, with no intent to misrepresent or unfairly benefit from McDonald's reputation. Distinct identity: The company said that it is a legally incorporated Indian MSME specialising in processed food, particularly in frozen French fries and their mark is also visually, phonetically and conceptually different from McDonald's trademarks. No prior conflict: The Trademark Registrar is said to have found no conflicting marks at the examination stage, leading to the application's acceptance and advertisement. Lack of evidence: McPatel also pointed to the absence of actual confusion or consumer deception. Jealousy: McPatel contends that the opposition is driven by 'business jealousy' and is filed in bad faith to harass a domestic company. McPatel stood by its rationale that 'Mc' is a common prefix and McDonald's cannot claim monopoly over it across all combinations or industries. As of now, the trademark registry has not made a final decision on the dispute. The ongoing litigation is expected to cause further delays, as reported by Bar and Bench.
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Khammam cyber crime police arrest 3 from A.P. in ‘digital arrest' fraud
The Khammam Cyber Crime Police have arrested three people from Andhra Pradesh for duping a Khammam-based retired teacher of ₹59 lakh in a 'digital arrest' fraud case. The accused were identified as Yerri Swamy, 35, E. Lakshma Naik, 35, and K. Narayana Reddy,49, of Anantapur district in Andhra Pradesh. According to the police, the accused allegedly coerced the victim to transfer ₹59 lakh in different spells in April 2025 under the guise of 'digital arrest' by pretending to be police from Bengaluru. The trio allegedly intimidated the victim by making false charges that his Aadhar card was used for job frauds and anti-social activities. Khammam Police Commissioner Sunil Dutt appreciated the Cyber Crime police team that nabbed the accused from Andhra Pradesh in a well-coordinated operation.
