The insolvency battle surrounding Byju’s has taken a new turn with allegations against global consulting firm EY. Byju Raveendran, founder of the edtech company, has accused EY of colluding with Byju’s lender Glas Trust and former resolution professional Pankaj Srivastava. The claims stem from a whistleblower’s revelation and raise concerns over Byju’s restructuring process.
How the dispute unfolded
Byju’s financial troubles began when the company defaulted on a $1.2 billion Term Loan B. A group of lenders, represented by Glas Trust, took the matter to India’s National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to recover Rs 11,432 crore. In June 2024, the NCLT ruled in favour of the lenders, allowing them to take control of Byju’s financial decisions. However, Raveendran and his team challenged this ruling, arguing that the lenders’ claims did not account for a separate Rs 158 crore dispute with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The allegations against EY
On February 27, 2025, a LinkedIn post from an EY whistleblower surfaced, claiming that EY had sided with Glas Trust and worked against Byju’s interests. Raveendran cited this post as evidence, alleging that EY:
Colluded with Glas Trust and Srivastava to manipulate Byju’s insolvency proceedings.
Helped shape decisions that favoured lenders at the cost of Byju’s restructuring.
Had access to a document proving criminal collusion, which was shared with some employees.
Key players in the controversy
EY (Ernst & Young): The global consultancy firm accused of improper advisory practices during Byju’s insolvency proceedings.
Glas Trust: A firm representing Byju’s lenders, though Raveendran claims it does not represent all creditors.
Pankaj Srivastava: The former resolution professional appointed by NCLT, alleged to have worked against Byju’s interests.
Legal and regulatory implications
The NCLT had already directed disciplinary proceedings against Srivastava. Now, if Raveendran’s allegations against EY gain traction, regulatory bodies such as India’s insolvency regulator may initiate further investigations.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., Byju’s is facing a separate legal setback. A Delaware bankruptcy court has ruled against Byju’s Alpha, Inc., a special-purpose vehicle of the company, for fraudulently transferring $533 million. The court found that the funds were moved to obscure their final destination, violating fiduciary duties.
What happens next?
EY has not yet responded to the allegations. If an independent investigation confirms wrongdoing, it could impact EY’s standing in India’s corporate sector. The case also highlights broader concerns about corporate governance and the role of consulting firms in financial distress situations.
As Byju’s battles legal challenges in both India and the U.S., the coming weeks will determine whether these allegations reshape the company’s future—or remain a flashpoint in an already complex insolvency process.