Byju Raveendran was kicked out of his company in October 2023. GLAS Trust took over the distressed Byju debt, which it purchased at a steep discount as a vulture lender, in a kind of bankruptcy procedure. During the next 18 months, Byju was totally locked out. He was unable to gain access to the company files, unable to visualize the financial records, and unable to get papers that would exonerate him. This lockout was deliberate.
However, on November 27, 2025, everything turned out to be different. Byju, with the assistance of his legal team, provided detailed evidence, including bank documents, transfer reports, and internal emails, which showed that the claim of diversion of $523 million was not valid. He is now suing GLAS Trust for the tune of $2.5 billion. The result of this fight might make a major difference in the security Indian founders have against predatory foreign lenders.
Byju Raveendran’s struggle involves more than just legal issues. It is a historical event in the life of Indian startups. He was methodically muted by a financial institution that sought to ruin the company to its fullest benefit. Despite his lockout, he exposed the tactics of vulture capital by gathering evidence. His imminent triumph can transform safeguards for all Indian founders who endure aggressive creditor attacks.
Locked Out and Silenced: Why Byju Raveendran Couldn’t Access His Own Evidence
By October 2023, the GLAS-controlled resolution professional had taken Byju out of the company and disabled all the systems. Between October 2023 and April 2025, or 18 months, Byju stayed in complete isolation, during which GLAS was manipulating the narrative in the courts. GLAS possessed all the company information, whereas Byju possessed nothing. This information asymmetry provided GLAS with a predatory advantage, directly integrating it into the control structure.
Even after legal discovery commenced, the resolution professional had on numerous occasions declined to divulge crucial documents, even after being ordered to do so by the courts. When GLAS lawyers acquired documents indicating that Think and Learn had gotten the funds in April 2025, GLAS intentionally failed to provide the same to both courts and Byju. What should a founder do to counter fraud accusations when they cannot obtain evidence to verify their innocence? This was the structural trap.
Imagine you’re accused of robbing your firm but can’t access systems proving your innocence. This is what Byju had to contend with.
The Evidence-Gathering Battle: How Byju Raveendran Proved Innocence From Outside
The Delaware Court’s ruling in June 2025, requiring GLAS to provide information, marked a pivotal moment. Lawyers of GLAS received the documentation for fund routing. The case involved a complete bank statement trail that followed the money trail of the $533 million offshore entity to Revere Capital, then to different Byju entities, and eventually to Think and Learn. Financial institutions verified these records.
Think and Learn independently verified the receipt and appropriate deployment of the funds through third-party verifications. Email logs indicated that there had been routing approvals that were made deliberately, i.e., toward Think and Learn, and not a diversion in the dark. Subpoena answers from GLAS itself significantly contributed to the gathering of this evidence in the related litigation. Paradoxically, the accuser-creditor of Byju had attorneys who wrote the truth.
Over 4-5 months that Byju’s legal team was locked out, it rebuilt the whole financial picture of outside sources. By April and May 2025, the evidence was complete. Byju published it publicly on November 27, 2025.
GLAS Trust’s Grand Strategy Failed: Why Vulture Lender Lost the Battle
GLAS won the judgment worth $1.07 billion in November 2025, but this is now contested, and the judgment will be overturned. Byju is also filing a countersuit of $2.5 billion for defamation, misconduct, and bad faith within 30 days. GLAS is exposed to giant proportions.
GLAS’ institutional credibility has failed. Their founder’s diversion story has been substituted with evidence that the creditor knew but lied. Byju, as a victor, will create a strong precedent where lenders using false allegations to control others will be held to disastrous liability. The threat of a counterclaim worth billions of dollars will cause the other creditors to reconsider making aggressive claims. GLAS now wants a settlement more than litigation, clearly stating reversal risk + counterclaim risk = rational settlement incentive. GLAS only acquired temporary control between 2023 and 2025, and some extraction fees. GLAS faces a much greater loss, including a lawsuit worth $2.5 billion and damage to both its institutional reputation and long-term standing.
Why Byju Raveendran Couldn’t Speak Earlier
His legal counsel advised Byju not to make any public speech in the litigation. That is a typical procedure, which enabled GLAS to control the mainstream discourse. He also lost the capacity to express any official opinion since he lost control of the company. GLAS controlled 18 months of messages.
The allegations of GLAS were reported in the media without any argument between 2023-2025. No founder response meant the allegations were true. Staff turnover occurred due to a misunderstanding and a lack of communication. The investors pulled out because they had found the allegations to be believable. Two years of unfavorable narratives went unchallenged and hardened the minds of the population.
Byju endured 24 months as an accused fraudster, unable to legally defend himself. In spite of evidence-based vindication, even in the present day, the reputational scars are still present. A reality highlighted in the analysis on why India’s unicorns need greater legal protection.
The Historical Battle: How Byju Raveendran’s Fight Will Protect Indian Startups
Indian startups are a long-term target of foreign lenders who make aggressive demands and use process asymmetry to their advantage. There is a lack of precedent for founder protection. Byju is now an Indian unicorn founder with a massive counterclaim, fighting back with evidence and is the first $25 billion unicorn founder.
When he wins the claim amounting to $2.5 billion, it will have shown that Indian founders could file suit and win over foreign creditors. All the entrepreneurs in India will know the significance of documentation, quick collection of evidence, and refusal to accept hostile lockouts.
Foreign vulture lenders will now think twice before attempting such tactics. On the basis of this case, regulators like SEBI and other governmental agencies might establish founder protection structures. When founders are enabled and predatory lenders are held back, a stronger ecosystem will be created.
Rajiv Memani (EY), Shailendra Ajmera (RP), Sunil Thomas (GLAS) Called in Court to Testify
The counter affidavit from Riju Ravindran included strong evidence of three major problems:
- Rajiv Memani and EY did not properly disclose conflicts
- Shailendra Ajmera omitted assets on Form G
- Sunil Thomas of GLAS did not share information about enforcement actions happening in the US.
The proof was too strong to the extent that the court directed all three to appear before it.
The affidavit linked the misconduct of these three with the $533 million case. The charges against Byju would have been lost without the conflict manipulation by Rajiv Memani, the asset suppression by Shailendra Ajmera, and the second recovery bids of Sunil Thomas. The court identified this linkage.
Riju had even asked SFIO and CBI to investigate fraud, collusion, and stripping of value across borders. All three individuals and institutions now face the possibility of a criminal investigation. The court listened to the defendants and required them to give their individual testimony, as detailed in Kerala HC summons RP, GLAS Trust & EY India head.
Making History: Why Byju Raveendran’s $2.5B Battle Will Reshape Startup-Creditor Wars
This is the initial significant case of how an Indian-based unicorn founder has managed to countersue a vulture lender with plausible multibillion-dollar damages. Byju Raveendran, a founder who was locked out and unable to defend himself, is now using evidence to reverse the situation.
In the event that Byju succeeds, that will be the watershed of business media. GLAS’s engineered fraud narrative will eventually give way to the founder protection narrative. This will be a symbolic win for the Indian startup community, which has been subjected to aggressive creditor tactics.
Lenders around the world will dread such pushback. This case can even be the foundation of new policies and regulations to ensure that founders are not preyed upon by their creditors. This saga will be examined in business schools for decades under themes such as “When a predatory lender miscalculated” and “How a founder overcame evidence suppression.”
