Glas Trust moves SC against Byju’s resolution professionals

MUMBAI: US-based Glas Trust LLC on Tuesday filed a fresh application in the Supreme Court against the liquidation professionals of ed-tech company Byju’s seeking its removal from the committee of creditors.

Glas Trust claims that removing it from the list of creditors has reduced its claim from 99% to zero. The US-based lender said its claim exceeds ₹11,000 crores.

It is alleged that the lender was delisted from the CoC list as it did not provide certain documents to the resolution professional.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud agreed to hear the case on Wednesday.

Glas Trust had filed a case in this regard in the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru bench on September 4. However, it did not get any relief as the case is still pending in the Supreme Court.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Glas Trust, said that on August 19, the CoC was constituted under IBC and Srivastava verified and admitted the claim of Glas Trust. But later the trust was delisted.

BCCI Settlement

Earlier, Glas Trust had moved the Supreme Court challenging the settlement agreement between Byju’s and its operational creditor, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), claiming that as a financial creditor, its dues should be settled before the cricket board.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, financial creditors have priority claim over the assets of an insolvent company, followed by operational creditors. The Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) aims to balance the interests of both classes of creditors and ensure a fair and transparent bankruptcy process for all parties involved.

Meanwhile, a bench of the National Company Law Tribunal in Bengaluru deferred its ruling on a plea filed by Glas Trust seeking stay on the functioning of the committee of creditors conference held in the Byju’s bankruptcy case.

On September 11, Aditya Birla Finance, one of Byju’s creditors, accused the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of playing “fraudulent” tactics in the company’s ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process. The lenders claimed that they were wrongly categorized as “operational creditors”.