From India’s $22 Billion Edtech Giant To A ₹53 Crore Arbitration Bill: How Byju Raveendran Is Now Offering Aakash Shares To Escape The Wreckage

BYJU’S founder Byju Raveendran has proposed relinquishing his claimed beneficial interest in 17.89 million shares of Aakash Educational Services to settle Qatar Holding’s arbitration claim of more than $235 million against him.

The shares, held through Singapore-based Beeaar Investco Pte, represent about 5.7% of Aakash’s equity. They were acquired in 2022 using $150 million in financing extended by QIA-owned Qatar Holding to Raveendran’s Singapore-based investment vehicle, Byju’s Investments Pte Ltd (BIPL). Raveendran personally guaranteed the financing.

The proposed settlement would put the Aakash shares at the centre of an attempt to resolve the dispute. However, the precise structure of the proposal and the value being assigned to the shares could not be ascertained.

Qatar Holding has not indicated that it considers the matter settled. A person familiar with the fund’s position told the publication that it would continue to pursue repayment of the debt and enforcement of the arbitral award in its favour.

The dispute over the shares itself is also contested. Qatar Holding has alleged that the Aakash stake was transferred to Beeaar, which it claims is beneficially owned by Raveendran, in breach of the financing agreement. The fund has sought to prevent the shares from being transferred, sold or pledged while it pursues recovery.

The latest proposal therefore does not simply put a value on a block of Aakash shares. It brings one of BYJU’S most significant assets into a legal battle that has already produced a $235 million-plus arbitration award – and continues to play out across India and Singapore.

How The Qatar Holding Dispute Escalated

The financing dispute moved from a failed repayment arrangement to arbitration and enforcement proceedings across two jurisdictions.

In July 2025, a Singapore arbitration tribunal directed Byju Raveendran and Byju’s Investments Pte Ltd to pay Qatar Holding more than $235 million, along with interest at 4% a year, compounded daily from February 28, 2024.

Qatar Holding then approached the Karnataka High Court to enforce the award in India. In September 2025, the court restrained Raveendran and BIPL from disposing of their assets while the enforcement proceedings continued.

The dispute has since generated a second financial liability. On July 21, 2026, another arbitration award directed Raveendran and BIPL to pay SGD 7.2 million, or about ₹53 crore, towards Qatar Holding’s arbitration costs. That award carries simple interest of 5.33% a year until payment.

Last month, the Karnataka High Court admitted Qatar Holding’s fresh plea seeking enforcement of the second award. The fund has also sought protection over assets worth more than $235 million while it pursues enforcement of both awards.

Qatar Holding has asked the court to require Raveendran to disclose his assets, including their location, value and beneficial ownership. It has also sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets and properties of Raveendran and BIPL.

The High Court has issued notices to Raveendran and BIPL and clubbed the fresh plea with the related proceedings. The matter is scheduled to be heard on September 21.

Why Aakash Has Become So Important

Aakash has become one of the most important assets in the wider fight over the remains of BYJU’S.

The company was among the major acquisitions made during BYJU’S rapid expansion, when the group was using large amounts of capital to build a broader education business. Today, its value has taken on a different significance: creditors are looking to recover money from a group whose liabilities far exceed the assets readily available to them.

That has made ownership and control of Aakash particularly important.

The latest proposal by Raveendran to give up his claimed beneficial interest in the 17.89 million shares comes as creditors separately explore settlements around the BYJU’S group. Any agreement involving those shares would therefore have implications beyond the Qatar Holding dispute, depending on how the proposed transfer is structured and valued.

The issue is complicated by the competing claims over the shares. Qatar Holding has alleged that the stake was moved to Beeaar Investco in breach of its financing agreement and has sought restrictions on any transfer, sale or pledge of the holding.

Aakash consequently sits at the intersection of three separate battles: Qatar Holding’s enforcement action, the broader claims of BYJU’S creditors, and the question of what assets can ultimately be recovered from the group and its founder.

The stakes extend beyond the 5.7% holding itself. Any resolution involving Aakash could affect how creditors assess the value available from one of the few significant businesses left inside the BYJU’S story.

BYJU’S Insolvency And The Creditor Fight

The Qatar Holding dispute is unfolding alongside the much larger insolvency battle surrounding Think & Learn, the legal entity behind BYJU’S.

The company entered insolvency proceedings in 2024 after defaulting on a payment of about ₹158 crore to the Board of Control for Cricket in India under a sponsorship agreement. The proceedings have since become a broader contest between Raveendran and the lenders seeking to recover money from the company.

In July, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal paused the next stage of the bidding process until its August 31 hearing. The resolution professional was directed not to issue Form G inviting expressions of interest or finalise the list of prospective resolution applicants during the period.

The tribunal did not, however, stop the insolvency proceedings themselves.

The order followed a challenge by Byju and Riju Raveendran to a ₹11,433 crore claim filed by GLAS Trust, the trustee representing BYJU’S US term loan lenders.

The size of that claim illustrates the gap between the liabilities being asserted against the group and the assets now available for recovery. Aakash has consequently become important not only because of its operating business, but because of the value creditors believe can still be extracted from the wider BYJU’S structure.

Creditors have separately been exploring a broader settlement centred on Aakash, adding another layer to the competing claims over the business.

For Raveendran, the Qatar Holding proceedings therefore represent one part of a much larger financial reckoning. The founder is dealing with claims against both the corporate group and himself personally, while creditors continue to determine what can actually be recovered from an empire that once commanded a valuation of nearly $22 billion.

From $22 Billion To Insolvency

The scale of the current disputes is difficult to separate from the extraordinary speed of BYJU’S expansion.

Founded in 2011, Think & Learn grew from an online learning and exam-preparation platform into the most valuable startup in India. The pandemic accelerated demand for online education, and the company responded with aggressive expansion, heavy marketing and a series of acquisitions, including Aakash Educational Services, Great Learning and Epic.

At its peak, BYJU’S was valued at nearly $22 billion and had attracted billions of dollars from global investors.

The growth, however, came with significant spending and borrowing. As pandemic-driven demand weakened, revenue growth slowed while the cost of the expanded business remained high.

A major turning point came with the $1.2 billion US term loan raised in 2021. Lenders later accused BYJU’S of breaching debt covenants, delaying financial disclosures and moving roughly $533 million of the loan proceeds through offshore entities beyond creditors’ reach. The dispute eventually reached a Delaware bankruptcy court, which entered a default judgment of more than $1.07 billion against Raveendran over non-compliance with discovery relating to BYJU’S US subsidiary, Byju’s Alpha.

The company was facing pressure in India as well. Unpaid dues of about ₹159 crore to the BCCI led to insolvency proceedings being admitted by the NCLT in July 2024. The process was briefly halted before the Supreme Court reinstated it in October 2024.

As the disputes multiplied, investors withdrew from the board and the company’s valuation collapsed. BlackRock, once an investor in BYJU’S, marked down its stake by around 95%.

The collapse turned what had been one of India’s most aggressive technology expansion stories into a fight over debt, ownership and recoverable assets — with Aakash now among the most closely watched pieces of what remains.
Raveendran’s Personal Legal Exposure

The collapse of BYJU’S has also followed Byju Raveendran beyond the company’s insolvency proceedings.

In Singapore, Raveendran is facing a six-month civil contempt sentence connected to the Qatar Holding dispute. The case relates to proceedings in which the court had sought information and compliance concerning assets.

That exposure sits alongside the arbitration awards against Raveendran and BIPL. Qatar Holding is now seeking enforcement of those awards in India and has asked the Karnataka High Court for detailed disclosure of Raveendran’s assets, including their location, value and beneficial ownership.

The fund has also sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets and properties of Raveendran and BIPL.

Raveendran has denied wrongdoing in the various disputes and has indicated that he intends to challenge adverse findings. His position has been that funds were used for legitimate business purposes, while he has also pursued settlement discussions with creditors.

The result is a legal picture that extends well beyond the original financing agreement. Arbitration awards, asset-disclosure proceedings, insolvency claims and contempt proceedings are now running alongside one another across jurisdictions.

That makes the proposed Aakash share transfer significant: it comes at a point when the question is no longer simply how BYJU’S can be restructured, but what assets can be identified, protected and ultimately recovered.

The Edtech Reckoning

BYJU’S was not the only major Indian edtech company to struggle as the pandemic-era boom faded. Unacademy followed a different path, while PhysicsWallah managed to reach the public markets. Together, the three companies now offer sharply different outcomes from the same expansion cycle.

Unacademy’s valuation fell to below $500 million from a peak of $3.5 billion in 2021. In March 2026, co-founder Gaurav Munjal confirmed a term sheet for rival upGrad to acquire the company in an all-stock transaction. The deal was subsequently cleared by the Competition Commission in July.

The transaction came despite Unacademy retaining more than $100 million in cash, according to the company.

PhysicsWallah took the more optimistic route. It became the first Indian edtech company to list after BYJU’S collapse and the layoffs at Unacademy, with its November 2025 IPO initially providing a public-market validation of the sector.

But the public listing has not meant that early investors are prepared to remain indefinitely.

Lightspeed Venture Partners, which had backed BYJU’S in its 2016 funding round, invested $210 million in PhysicsWallah in September 2024 alongside Hornbill Capital, at a valuation of $2.8 billion. Less than two years later, Lightspeed has sold its entire holding.

The three outcomes are telling. BYJU’S is in insolvency. Unacademy is being absorbed by a rival. PhysicsWallah remains a listed company, but one of its major early investors has already taken its money off the table.

The question for India’s edtech sector is therefore no longer whether companies can attract capital. It is whether investors still believe they need to wait years for the sector’s promised growth to translate into durable returns.

Lightspeed’s Exit From PhysicsWallah

Lightspeed’s decision to exit PhysicsWallah adds a more immediate question to the sector’s recovery story: how long are investors prepared to hold their edtech bets?

The firm sold its entire stake in PhysicsWallah for ₹549.73 crore in August 2026, less than two years after investing $210 million in the company. The sale covered a 1.61% holding through a block deal at ₹117 a share, below the previous close of about ₹121.

The timing was notable. Lightspeed exited as the IPO lock-in period expired, turning what had been a relatively recent private-market investment into a realised public-market exit.

PhysicsWallah had listed in November 2025 at ₹156 a share, 44% above its ₹109 issue price, after touching ₹161.99. Its market capitalisation reached about ₹44,800 crore, while the ₹3,480 crore IPO was subscribed 1.81 times.

The company’s operating numbers have since improved in some areas. Revenue in the first quarter of FY27 rose 24% year-on-year to ₹1,054 crore, while its consolidated net loss narrowed to ₹77.6 crore from ₹120.5 crore a year earlier. EBITDA remained positive at ₹56.9 crore, although that was lower than the ₹76.3 crore recorded in the previous quarter.

PhysicsWallah has also been expanding beyond its original offering, increasing its stake in Sarrthi IAS and acquiring stakes in Utkarsh Classes & Edutech and Xylem Learning.

Yet the stock has fallen 30% over the past six months.

That makes Lightspeed’s exit less a verdict on one quarter’s numbers than a reminder of how investor behaviour has changed since the edtech boom. Public-market access may have returned to the sector, but private investors are still making decisions based on liquidity, valuation and the time required to turn growth into returns.

Lightspeed has also been exploring a reduction in its holding in Oyo, adding to the broader picture of a venture investor looking to realise value from earlier bets.

What Remains Of The Byju’s Empire

The most revealing measure of BYJU’S collapse may no longer be its valuation, but what is left to sell.

The insolvency process has turned the group’s once sprawling portfolio into a collection of individual assets, claims and businesses that creditors are trying to value and recover from.

Even relatively modest physical assets have become part of that exercise. Around 200,000 tablets, along with thousands of laptops, headphones, routers and other hardware, are sitting in a Bengaluru warehouse. Their estimated value is between ₹7 crore and ₹10 crore. The inventory is being audited and sold in lots rather than released into the market at a steep discount.

Other parts of the former empire have proved harder to monetise. The sale of assets such as GeoGebra and WhiteHat Jr has seen limited progress, while the broader resolution process has continued to face delays.

The June 30 deadline for expressions of interest in the larger resolution process passed with a further extension under discussion.

Against that backdrop, Aakash stands apart. Unlike warehouse equipment or individual subsidiaries, it remains an operating education business and one of the most significant assets associated with the BYJU’S group.

That helps explain why the 17.89 million-share holding has become important to several sides of the dispute. For Qatar Holding, it represents a potential source of recovery. For Raveendran, it is an asset that could form part of a settlement. For other creditors, it is part of the broader question of how much value can still be extracted from the remains of BYJU’S.

The company that once raised billions on the promise of transforming education is now being measured in individual assets and in who gets to claim them.

The Cost Of The Edtech Bet

The BYJU’S collapse has also exposed the cost of an investment model built around rapid expansion.

Lightspeed’s experience captures part of that shift. The firm backed BYJU’S in 2016, when the company was still in its high-growth phase. Years later, after BYJU’S had become a nearly $22 billion company and then entered a prolonged collapse, Lightspeed made another large edtech bet – this time on PhysicsWallah.

That investment was made in September 2024, when Lightspeed led a $210 million Series B round at a $2.8 billion valuation. Less than two years later, it has exited completely.

The PhysicsWallah investment initially appeared to offer a different trajectory. The company reached the public markets, reported higher revenue and narrowed its losses. But the subsequent fall in its share price and Lightspeed’s exit soon after the lock-in expired underline the gap between public-market access and sustained investor confidence.

The same period has produced very different outcomes across India’s large edtech companies. Byju’s moved from a record private valuation to insolvency. Unacademy’s valuation fell sharply before it agreed to be acquired by a rival. PhysicsWallah achieved a listing but has already seen a major early investor leave.

For investors, the lesson may be less about whether Indian edtech can grow and more about how that growth is financed, valued and eventually monetised.

The sector has not disappeared. What has disappeared is the assumption that rapid user growth, large funding rounds and ever-rising valuations will automatically translate into enduring businesses.

The Empire’s Final Reckoning

The proposed Aakash settlement captures the reversal in Byju Raveendran’s fortunes more clearly than another valuation figure ever could.

Aakash was acquired as part of BYJU’S push to build a comprehensive education company spanning online learning, test preparation and physical classrooms. It was supposed to strengthen the group’s reach. Instead, its shares are now caught in a contest between a lender seeking recovery, creditors seeking value from the insolvent group and a founder facing legal action over his own obligations.

That is the central paradox of the BYJU’S collapse.

The company once had access to billions of dollars in capital and a valuation approaching $22 billion. Its expansion was built around the belief that scale could keep creating value. Today, the process is moving in the opposite direction: businesses are being separated, assets are being identified and creditors are competing over what can actually be recovered.

The Aakash shares are therefore more than another disputed asset. They are a measure of how far the original BYJU’S proposition has fallen.

Whether they ultimately form part of a settlement with Qatar Holding will depend on the legal proceedings and the terms of any agreement. But the direction of travel is already clear.

The question surrounding BYJU’S is no longer how large the empire can become. It is how much of it can still be recovered.