Camshaft disclosed in court filings this week that some $ 533 million it managed for Byju’s Alpha, a U.S. unit of Indian edtech group Byju’s, was transferred to another 100% and U.S.-based subsidiary of Byju’s, thereby refuting allegations that the Indian firm used the wealth manager’s services to misappropriate money.
In the court filings, Camshaft said the capital was transferred to Inspilearn LLC, a Delaware-based subsidiary of Byju’s. Camshaft also clarified that Byju’s or any of its entities are not limited partners in the hedge fund.
In a statement, Byju’s said Camshaft’s disclosure is consistent with the Indian startup’s position that it remained the beneficiary holder of the capital. The firm further added that the Credit Agreement it signed with the lenders didn’t mandate how it used the funds, nor required a specific amount to maintain as collateral.
“The latest disclosure dispels fake narratives about $ 533 million being siphoned off,” the startup said.
Camshaft Capital attracted media attention last year after lenders of Byju’s questioned the legitimacy of the wealth advisor as they claimed the $ 533 million was a collateral for a $ 1.2 billion they had lent to the Indian startup. A select few estranged investors in Byju’s later used the allegation to discredit Byju’s founder Byju Raveendran’s credibility.
Byju’s, valued at $ 22 billion in early 2022, is also ensnared in a legal battle with some of its shareholders in Bengaluru who have been attempting to revoke a rights issue at the edtech group.
On Saturday, Byju’s informed employees that the startup had successfully raised new funds through the rights issue but a select few investors “(4 out of the 150+ investors) have stooped to a heartless level, ensuring that we are unable to utilize the funds raised to pay your hard-earned salaries.”
As a result of this, more than 20,000 employees of Byju’s wouldn’t receive their salaries on time, Raveendran wrote to employees.
Last month, some shareholders voted to remove Raveendran from the edtech group. A day later, Raveendran assured employees that he was still their chief executive and questioned the legitimacy of the select investor group’s action.
