Was pressured to select process advisor, alleges Byju's former IRP

Khaitan & Co, EY refute allegations

Edtech firm Byju’s former interim resolution professional (IRP) has alleged that he was pressured by Khaitan & Co to select EY as process advisor for the investigation against Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, the parent firm of Byju’s.

 

The IRP had written a letter to show that he did not mislead or fail in his statutory duties.

 

Pankaj Srivastava, former IRP in the insolvency procedure against Think & Learn, has made the allegations in a 90-page confidential filing to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).

 

In January this year, Srivastava was removed as the IRP in the case as the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) found him unfit to oversee the proceedings. The NCLAT also directed the IBBI to take disciplinary action against him.

 

In the confidential document sent to the manager and investigating authority, IBBI, and seen by Business Standard, Srivastava has alleged that officials of Khaitan and Co. (counsel of GLAS) reached out to him about the manner in which the claim of GLAS Trust shall be treated in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) on the grounds that they are claiming as authorised representatives of the group of lenders.

 

In the document, Srivastava alleged that soon after assuming the office of IRP, he was constantly receiving several unwarranted directions and communications from GLAS (who then had no locus standi in the matter to issue instructions to IRP), and through their counsels Khaitan & Co, Kirkland & Ellis supported by EY team.

 

He also alleges that officials of Khaitan & Co said he should engage Ernst & Young (EY IPE) as the process advisor for the CIRP of Think & Learn.

 

Srivastava said he expressed reluctance on this for the reason that PwC’s IPE was already providing similar assistance to the IRP in another large case and had also submitted its proposal to assist in this matter.

 

He also said that EY was desperate to get the assignment and was ready to negotiate the professional fee.

 

When the IRP proposed a fee of ₹3 lakh per month for IPE support services, EY readily agreed. This is when similar services from PwC cost ₹18 lakh per month.

 

“They further insisted that if I did not cooperate for appointing EY as the IPE, they would malign my image as insolvency professional, a prophecy that appears was premeditated as things progressed in the matter. And, going with anyone other than EY IPE would be counterproductive to the interests of GLAS, who would eventually be on the CoC (committee of creditors) and thereby, driving the CIRP. It will lead to adverse personal consequences if I did not toe their line,” alleged Srivastava in the document. “It has been brought to our notice that certain allegations have been levelled against the firm in relation to a client matter. We refute these allegations and maintain that they are completely untrue and baseless. All our client matters are conducted at the highest levels of integrity, ethics, fairness and diligence, and completely in accordance with the law. As the cited matter is currently sub-judice, we will refrain from making any further comments,” said a statement from Khaitan & Co.

 

Attempts made to connect with Srivastava failed till the time of going to press.  EY, in an email statement, said: “We believe the allegations being circulated are not credible and are without basis. The insolvency & bankruptcy code is a regulated process which provides for grievances to be raised with the concerned authorities.” EY IEP, however, had resigned as advisor to the IRP in September 2024, about a month after it was appointed. Srivastava also notes that there was “undue influence” played by the process advisor in collusion with GLAS.

 

He also noted that the non filing of withdrawal of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) settlement was upon the insistence of the RP counsel then, backed by EY IPE.

 

Salman Waris, managing partner at TechLegis Advocates & Solicitors, after analysing the document, said, “The reply by the IRP to the notice issued by IBBI with regard to the CIRP of Think and Learn Private Limited, where he tried to clear his name, was especially in light of Byju’s founder Byju Raveendran’s allegations,” said Waris. 

Key charges

  > Former IRP alleges that he was constantly receiving several unwarranted directions from GLAS & their counsels  

> He claims that officials of Khaitan & Co said that he should engage Ernst & Young (EYIPE) as the process advisor for the CIRP of Think & Learn