Summary –
- Judge John T. Dorsey ruled that Riju Ravindran’s testimony “lacks all credibility.”
- The court sanctioned Ravindran by prohibiting him from arguing in fraudulent transfer litigation.
- The decision was seen as a symbolic victory for lenders represented by Glas Trust.
- The ruling puts limited pressure on Ravindran to cooperate to avoid financial penalties.
- A hearing is planned to determine Ravindran’s fines and assets subject to court jurisdiction.
Introduction
Judge of US court John T. Dorsey issued the ruling following Ravindran’s repeated refusal to disclose the situation of $533 Million in term loan proceeds transferred from BYJU’s.
In its decision, the Court concluded that Riju Ravindran’s testimony “lacks all credibility.” Additionally, the Court sanctioned Ravindran by prohibiting him from arguing in the current fraudulent transfer litigation.
Dorsey said “I conclude Mr. Ravindran‘s testimony is not truthful,” who is the judge of the US court He further said that either Ravindran knows where the money is hidden and won’t say or he refused to find out.
The decision was a symbolic victory for lenders, represented by their agent, Glas Trust, and likely puts only limited pressure on Riju Ravindran to cooperate to avoid financial penalties. Dorsey said he would hold a hearing to decide how much Riju Ravindran must pay in fines and whether the businessman has any assets subject to court jurisdiction.
The missing money is at the heart of a fight between lenders owed more than $1.2 billion and Think & Learn. The two sides are battling in courts in Delaware and New York. Lenders had previously seized control of a holding company set up by Think & Learn to issue $1.2 billion in debt. That unit, Byju’s Alpha, is now in bankruptcy under Dorsey’s oversight. Ravindran is appealing a decision by Delaware’s Chancery Court approving that seizure.
Conclusion
Riju Ravindran, the brother of company founder Byju Raveendran, not only failed to make a serious effort to find out what happened to the cash but also deceived the court. The judge of the court has repeatedly expressed frustration over the company’s refusal to say where the money is being held.
