Camshaft revealed in court filings this week that about $533 million it managed for Byju's Alpha, a US unit of Indian edtech group Byju's, was transferred to another 100% US-based subsidiary of Byju's, refuting allegations that The Indian company used the wealth. Manager services for embezzlement of funds.
In 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.
Byju's said in a statement that Camshaft's disclosure is consistent with the Indian startup's position that it has remained the beneficiary of the capital. The company also added that the credit agreement it signed with lenders did not specify how the funds would be used, nor did it require a specific amount to be held as collateral.
“The latest revelation dispels false narratives about the theft of $533 million,” the startup said.
Camshaft Capital attracted media attention last year after Byju's lenders questioned the legitimacy of the wealth advisor as they claimed $533 million was collateral for $1.2 billion they lent to the Indian startup. A select few separate investors in Byju's later used this claim to discredit Byju's founder Byju Raveendran.
Byju's, which was valued at $22 billion in early 2022, is also embroiled in a legal battle with some of its shareholders in Bengaluru who have been trying to quash the rights issue in the edtech group.
On Saturday, Byju's employees reported that the startup had successfully raised new funds through a rights issue, but a select few investors (4 out of over 150 investors) stooped to heartless level, ensuring that we were unable to use the funds. collected to pay your hard-earned salaries.”
As a result, more than 20,000 Byju's employees will not receive their salaries on time, Raveendran wrote to employees.
Last month, some shareholders voted to remove Raveendran from the education technology group. A day later, Raveendran assured employees that he was still their CEO and questioned the legality of the action taken by the selected investor group.
