Aakash accuses EY of conflict of interest, seeks Byju's-linked records

AESL has accused EY of conflict of interest for advising both AESL and Byju's during their failed acquisition and demanded disclosure of all related documents and communications

Aakash Educational Services Ltd (AESL) has accused EY of conflict of interest and professional misconduct in the context of its ongoing legal dispute involving Byju’s.

 

The dispute primarily concerns governance and control issues at AESL following the failed acquisition by Byju’s.

 

In a strongly worded letter dated 17 May 2025, AESL’s legal team alleged that EY acted in a dual capacity, offering advisory services to both AESL and Byju’s, despite being fully aware of their intertwined relationship.

 

AESL described EY’s conduct as “unethical and legally untenable” and demanded that the firm cease all involvement and preserve all communication records for potential legal proceedings.

 

Manipal Group also raises red flags

 

CrestLaw Partners, representing the Manipal Group—a significant stakeholder in AESL—also questioned EY’s role in advising the group on matters involving tax, regulatory compliance, and accounting. 

 

In a letter dated 21 May, CrestLaw wrote: “We would further like to point out that, as majority shareholder in AESL, our client has been apprised that there are considerable correspondences in the records of AESL, which show that EY was a constant factor, in both operations and advice rendered to Mr Byju Raveendran/Byju’s/AESL/Aakash Choudhry/Blackstone/our clients, the Manipal Group.”

 

It added: “Your association in any manner, through anyone, in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is a matter of considerable concern, regret and amounts to misconduct.”

 

EY denies allegations

 

In response, EY told PTI: “We refute all allegations. We treat matters of client confidentiality and conflict with utmost seriousness. Therefore, we cannot comment further on this matter.”

 

Legal warning from AESL

 

AESL’s legal head Sanjay Garg stressed the significance of the issue: “We have sufficient material in our possession to submit before any adjudicating/regulatory authority to suggest that any involvement in the CIRP process would conflict with independent professional functions to be performed by entities such as you.”

 

He added: “We would be constrained to take appropriate steps if you do not appreciate the seriousness of the point made by us—that EY was an advisor as well as participant in many of the decisions.”