Byju Raveendran’s Documentation Paradox: Why Complete Accounting May Not Restore Reputation
For almost two years, the biggest concern for Byju’s was the unresolved question regarding the $533 million that flowed through the loan structure into the company. Creditors claimed the money had vanished, which created public doubt and intense media pressure.
Now the situation has shifted as Byju Raveendran has compiled financial records and bank trails that show the actual fund movement. With this evidence, he plans a $2.5 billion lawsuit against GLAS Trust for defamation and for presenting an incomplete financial picture.
The Two-Year Question: What Happened to the $533 Million?
For a long time, creditors alleged that $533 million sent to Byju’s Alpha had simply vanished, and they claimed that they did not know where the funds had gone. This story raised a great deal of suspicion toward the founder and the company.
Conversely, Byju Raveendran and his family upheld that the money was utilized by Think and Learn to make proper business investments, such as expansion and acquisition. They also put over $475 million of their own money into Think and Learn, which they said was for the company, not for personal gain.
Despite this, GLAS continued to say they lacked clarity on fund deployment, and this repeated claim eventually influenced the Delaware court as well. The core problem was the absence of shared documentation in the public domain. Without proper records, people assumed the worst. This section of the case shows how the lack of transparency from GLAS allowed doubt to grow even when the financial chain existed all along. And when GLAS was aware of money being deployed inappropriately and argued to the contrary in court, then this is potentially a deliberate misrepresentation as compared to actual accounting confusion.
Evidence Presentation: How $533M Was Actually Deployed
The evidence of news that Byju has introduced consists of bank statements, intermediary transfer records, internal accounting records, and email records that convincingly indicate how the money was transferred back and forth through the system. These documents map the route from the original lender through Revere Capital to the Byju entities and finally to Think and Learn. The funds were then deployed for business operations and acquisitions, including expansion initiatives such as Aakash. This disclosure forms a critical part of the narrative in Byju Raveendran to contest US court order, cites new evidence on use of $533 Million, highlighting how the financial trail supports his position.
This evidence is stronger because lawyers working for GLAS obtained these routing documents through a subpoena months before publicly claiming ignorance. The founder highlights that such data makes the central allegation of missing funds incorrect.
Additional credibility comes from the matching financial records of Think and Learn, which show legitimate usage of the money. Byju Raveendran and his family invested over $475 million into Think and Learn during the same period, with TLPL guaranteeing the loan and public records confirming business use. When this complete chain is seen together, it becomes clear that the narrative of missing funds could have been addressed much earlier if the complete set of documents had been shared openly.
The Creditor’s Dilemma: If GLAS Knew, Why Claim They Didn’t?
The biggest twist to the case is the contradiction that GLAS publicly claimed they did not know what happened to the money, but their counsel had the routing details before June 2025, when the Delaware Court was supposedly duped. And even in the case GLAS knew in April, why did they assert in subsequent filings that they did not know? They put it in the form of a contradiction, which influences all their statements of allegation.
The situation in the court filings of GLAS gave a vision of uncertainty, and that contributed hugely to the decision made in Delaware. The finding that the documents to which the subpoena was issued were not provided to the defendant or the court raises concerns about fairness and transparency. The ensuing default verdict, therefore, rested on a partial understanding.
The advantage of that story is understandable. It bolstered their litigation case and put Byju in a negative light. Since it has been revealed that the trail of funds was known, the credibility of the creditor’s claims is now seriously questioned.
The $2.5B Lawsuit: What Byju Raveendran Is Demanding
The suit seeks damages for defamation, business disturbance, lost valuation, damaged reputation, and personal economic effect. The company spent nearly two years dealing with a negative atmosphere created by claims suggesting financial misconduct. This caused a huge loss of investor confidence and a steep drop in the valuation to below $3 billion.
Workers ran away, and clients were doubting the security of the business. Most of this harm, according to the founder, was attributed to the fake story on the diversion of funds and not the pure market conditions. A major individual financial impact is also mentioned in the lawsuit because the founders themselves financed the activities during the crisis.
The lawsuit will seek to hold individuals and GLAS Trust accountable by attacking the source of the falsified story. Similar global financial claims have also led to major settlements that make the $2.5 billion claim a strategic claim within global jurisprudence.
Delaware Court’s Default Judgment: Now Challenged as ‘Premature’
Byju Raveendran has presented a Rule 60 motion, which opposes the default judgment made by the court of Delaware. It was a discovery sanction of the late production of documents and was not intended to be a final determination of fraud or conversion. Additional damage to the judgment is that at the end of September 2025, GLAS withdrew its damages claim and also withdrew the single declaration that had been made beforehand supporting the same.
No other evidence was presented at the hearing, and the statement made by Timothy Pohl was the only evidence that proved damages, which GLAS withdrew before the hearing. No formal damages were heard, and the court indicated that the issue of damages had not been placed, and so the determination was made without due discussion. Byju Raveendran was not given a chance to cross-examine Pohl, which could have been a cause of due process. In the event the Rule 60 motion is granted, the award of damages may be eliminated, and the liability may be left in place with the damages retrial pending a fair hearing.
Contempt Evidence Against Rajiv Memani (EY), Shailendra Ajmera (RP), Sunil Thomas (GLAS): What Kerala HC Already Knows About Byju Raveendran Case
Kerala High Court proceedings have shown that there are considerable irregularities in the procedures. Rajiv Memani of EY filed IBBI-required conflict disclosure forms marked as nil, yet there is documentary evidence to the contrary that he had worked with both Byju and GLAS Trust before a clear contradiction that the court must seek to determine on December 5.
The Form G that Shailendra Ajmera prepared under the resolution process did not show assets such as Epic, Tangible Play, Great Learning, and Tynker with a value of $1.42 billion. Board minutes and emails indicate that there is a planned effort between Ajmera and Memani to approve the omission, with expert valuations. There are also communication threads to prove that Sunil Thomas knew about the coordinated action and accepted it. These developments further underline concerns highlighted in How Foreign Investors Threaten Indian Startup, showing how external forces and procedural inconsistencies can impact major Indian startups.
According to the court, there are well-defined deadlines between the May 21 HC order and US enforcement in June, with omissions of Form G in August-September and equivalent actions in November, which suggests a premeditated order of things, not accidental. All involved individuals have been ordered to appear in person on December 5.
Conclusion: What’s Next
Byju Raveendran will initiate the lawsuit in the amount of 2.5 billion dollars within thirty days of November 27, 2025, and in the filing, the formal damages claim will be substantiated. This will lead to an appeal with damages and a liability reconsideration, rather than a rejection that allows an appeal. The same fact will be presented in the Indian courts in the context of the claims that can be made by the resolution professionals that infringe on the insolvency proceedings that are in progress.
The RP and other parties interested in GLAS Trust have been in a difficult position and need to defend themselves at once. The creditors will assess their exposure and discuss settlement between the evidence release and the lawsuit filing. The developments are being tracked closely by employees, investors, and customers, and a promising resolution would lead to confidence being restored, any exodus being reversed, and a precedent being set on founders seeking serious damages against aggressive foreign creditors in the future, affecting how the startup debt market will behave and how investors will trust the future.
