US court orders Zoho's Sridhar Vembu to post $1.7 bn bond in divorce case

A US court has ordered Zoho co-founder Sridhar Vembu to post a $1.7 billion bond in his divorce case and halted a restructuring to protect his ex-wife's asset rights

A California court has ordered Zoho co-founder Sridhar Vembu to furnish a $1.7 billion bond in his ongoing divorce case to safeguard the financial interests of his former wife, Pramila Srinivasan, according to a report by The News Minute.

 

The order, issued in January 2025 by the Superior Court of California in Alameda County, also appointed a receiver to oversee Zoho entities and halted a major corporate restructuring move. The court ruled that the steps were necessary to prevent potential prejudice to Srinivasan’s rights over marital assets.

 

"The record in this case demonstrates that petitioner (Sridhar) has acted without regard for respondent’s (Pramila’s) interests in community assets and without regard for the law, and that Zoho Corporation, T&V Holdings, Inc., Tony Thomas, ZCPL and related entities will act at Petitioner’s direction to further Petitioner’s interest and prejudice Respondent’s interests," the order said, as quoted by The News Minute.

 

 

The ruling followed an application filed by Srinivasan in November 2024, in which she claimed that Vembu dumped a chunk of his shares in Zoho without her knowledge. Vembu, however, denied that claim and said that he always held only 5 per cent in Zoho despite being its co-founder and serving as its chief executive officer (CEO) for a long time. According to the report, his siblings now control the majority shareholding (over 80 per cent). As per the 2025 Forbes list, Vembu and his siblings have a net worth of $6 billion.

 

Under California law, assets acquired during a marriage are treated as community property and are to be divided equally in the absence of a written agreement stating otherwise. Vembu and Srinivasan were married for nearly three decades and lived in the United States with their son before Vembu relocated to India in late 2019. Divorce proceedings began in 2021.

 

The court also questioned whether the stated stake accurately reflects his true ownership and described the absence of detailed financial disclosure as "extremely troubling". 

Vembu’s counsel disputes bond order, calls ruling misleading

Reacting to a post on X that shared the article, Vembu’s counsel said several key facts had been omitted from earlier reporting and contested the basis of the California court’s order.

 

“As Sridhar Vembu’s counsel, I can add some facts missing from the article. The order was passed a year ago on an emergency application filed by his wife, which gave us little time to respond to what were outrageously false allegations,” the counsel said.

 

He alleged that the California judge had been “completely misled” by Srinivasan’s attorney, claiming the lawyer was not licensed to practise in California and had entered the case from New York despite there being no jurisdictional issues linked to that state.

 

According to the counsel, Vembu had offered his wife 50 per cent of his shares in ZCPL, but she had refused to accept them. “This makes no sense, as she could take her half of the shares immediately. Sridhar has also already transferred his interest in the family home to her,” he said, rejecting allegations that Vembu was attempting to deprive her of assets.

 

The counsel further described the court’s direction to furnish a $1.7 billion bond as legally untenable. “Despite acting honourably throughout the process, the judge was persuaded to pass an order requiring Sridhar to post a $1.7 billion bond for the wife’s supposed protection. There is no legal authority for such an order,” he said, adding that a subsequent judge had acknowledged the amount appeared “absurd”.

 

He said Vembu had managed to borrow up to $150 million against his shares, which he described as the maximum extent to which compliance was possible, but claimed that the amount was not accepted.

 

Calling the proceedings “a waste of time”, the counsel alleged that Srinivasan’s attorney had misled both the court and his client, while billing “millions of dollars in legal fees”.

 

“This case has nothing to do with alimony, as no support order has even been sought,” the counsel said, adding that Vembu remained in compliance with all lawful court orders. He said the $1.7 billion bond order was invalid, could not be complied with, and is currently under appeal, while the receivership order has also been stayed.

 

“This is old news about an order that should never have been made. This case does not define Sridhar,” the counsel said, adding that he was “honoured to represent” Vembu.