The judgment penalised Raveendran $533 million on one count and a further $540,647,109.29 on three additional counts.
Published Nov 25, 2025 | 5:20 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 25, 2025 | 5:20 PM
Byju Raveendran. Credit: x.com/ByjuofBYJUS
Synopsis: A US court has issued a default judgment holding Byju Raveendran personally liable for over $1 billion after he repeatedly defied discovery orders in a case brought by BYJU’S Alpha and creditor GLAS Trust over the alleged disappearance of $533 million in Term Loan B funds. The court imposed $1.07 billion in damages and ordered full accounting of the missing money.
A United States court has issued a default judgment holding tainted edutech head honcho Byju Raveendran “personally liable” for more than $1 billion in response to proceedings brought by BYJU’S Alpha and the US-based creditor GLAS Trust Company LLC.
In its order dated 20 November 2025, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled that Raveendran had repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders and had been deliberately evasive.
The judgment awards Raveendran $533 million on one count and a further $540,647,109.29 on three additional counts. Raveendran has also been ordered to provide a complete and accurate accounting of the Alpha Funds and all subsequent transfers, including the Camshaft LP interest.
BYJU’S Alpha was incorporated while Raveendran controlled Think and Learn Private Limited (TLPL) – firm behind the Byju’s brand. TLPL had raised a $1 billion Term Loan B from US lenders.
Creditors later accused BYJU’S Alpha of breaching the loan agreement and unlawfully transferring $533 million out of the United States.
GLAS Trust obtained a favourable Delaware ruling granting it control of BYJU’S Alpha. Both BYJU’S Alpha and GLAS Trust later sought discovery of the missing $533 million and related transactions.
The court found that Raveendran was fully aware of the discovery orders yet chose not to comply. It had previously held him in contempt and imposed daily sanctions of $10,000, which remain unpaid.
The judgment described Raveendran’s conduct as “a strategic pattern of willful failure to comply with discovery” and concluded that, given his residence abroad (UAE) and apparent refusal to satisfy either the financial penalties or the discovery requirements, monetary sanctions had proved ineffective.
A default judgment was therefore deemed the appropriate remedy.
