HYDERABAD/DUBAI: Byju’s, once a shining beacon in India’s edtech industry, provider of almost two lakhs employment at its peak, now finds itself entangled in bankruptcy proceedings in India and in Delaware court. Its collapse has impacted millions, including students and educators not only in India but worldwide.
In another complex legal battle that could again affect millions of students worldwide, Dubai-based Voizzit Information Technology LLC is fighting to protect two major educational platforms from potential disruption. At the heart of this dispute are Epic (getepic.com) and Osmo (playosmo.com), which together serve over 45 million students globally, including 1.5 million in India.
Epic is a leading digital reading platform built on a collection of 40,000+ popular, high-quality books from 250+ of the world’s best publishers that safely fuels curiosity and reading confidence for kids 12 and under, while Osmo merges tactile exploration with innovative technology, actively engaging children in the learning process.
The story begins in December 2023, when Voizzit’s founder, Rajendran Vellapalath, a technology entrepreneur, bought over a $100 million loan to help BYJU’S meet its employee payroll obligations. As BYJU’S financial difficulties mounted, Voizzit converted this loan into ownership of Epic and Osmo in April 2024, subsequently managing these platforms from Dubai and India.
The situation has become increasingly urgent as critical software updates loom on the horizon. These updates are essential for maintaining the complex architecture that supports thousands of publications and tracks student performance across both platforms. Without these updates, the entire educational ecosystem risks disruption, potentially leaving countless students and teachers without access to their vital learning tools, according to the company sources.
The Legal Turmoil for Epic & Osmo
A significant aspect of this dispute centers on legal jurisdiction. While the case is being heard in Delaware courts, both Epic and Osmo were effectively managed from Dubai and India, not the United States. This raises fundamental questions about the Delaware court’s authority over platforms whose place of effective management lies outside US borders.
The controversy deepened when GLAS Trust, representing BYJU’S lenders, presented their sole witness, William Hailer, to the Delaware court. Vellapalath has strongly challenged Hailer’s testimony, presenting evidence that paints a different picture. This includes documentation presented in a brief 10-minute meeting at BYJU’S Dubai residence, where Hailer presented a term sheet signed by himself and GLAS for a $150 million financing plan. Vellapalath has also submitted sealed court documents containing communication exchanges between Hailer and various legal representatives, which he claims expose significant discrepancies in Hailer’s testimony.
The timeline of events reveals a rapid succession of developments: from the initial loan agreement in September 2023 to the US lenders filing for bankruptcy in India in January 2024, followed by Voizzit’s conversion of the loan to ownership in April 2024. Between April and July 2024, the management of both platforms transitioned to Dubai and India, with asset protection measures implemented by August 2024.
The impact of this dispute extends far beyond corporate boardrooms. These platforms are critical tools for special education classrooms, school districts, and millions of students worldwide. The potential disruption threatens to undermine educational access at a fundamental level, particularly affecting vulnerable student populations who rely heavily on these digital learning tools.
“This isn’t just about business ownership,” Vellapalath emphasizes, “it’s about ensuring millions of students don’t lose access to essential learning tools.” His commitment to maintaining educational access while fighting for clear recognition of Voizzit’s ownership highlights the broader implications of this corporate dispute.
As Voizzit is not in control of these platforms currently, the company faces the challenge of balancing immediate technical needs with long-term legal considerations. The necessity of regular platform updates adds urgency to resolving the ownership dispute, as any disruption could have cascading effects on global education access. The case stands as a testament to how corporate disputes in the digital age can have far-reaching consequences for educational systems worldwide, particularly affecting those who rely on these platforms for daily learning and teaching activities.
The resolution of this dispute may set important precedents for international educational technology ownership and management, especially in cases where platforms operate globally but are managed from multiple jurisdictions. As the situation continues to unfold, the primary concern remains maintaining uninterrupted access to these vital educational resources for millions of students and teachers around the world.
Is US judiciary imposing its extraterritorial jurisdiction over other nations?
The recent case of a US court’s indictment of India’s top business tycoon Gautham Adani over some ‘charges’ levelled by its government authorities is not to be ignored as a random incident, according to a section of legal fraternity.
The US judiciary’s actions in handing out indictments or rulings against foreign individuals, businesses, or entities can indeed raise questions about extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The US courts often claim extraterritorial jurisdiction under laws like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or anti-money laundering statutes. These laws allow US authorities to prosecute foreign individuals or corporations if their actions have a “substantial nexus” to the United States, such as using the US financial system or engaging in transactions that violate US laws.
But if an India court does the same to any US entity, will it be accepted by that government and the entity?
Will India take in the same way if any judicial action comes from a smaller country like Singapore, Malaysia, or Thailand?
While it’s important to consider the legal basis on which such actions are taken and whether they align with international law and agreements, some hidden agenda of the Big Judiciary for curtailing Indian companies from growing into global leaders may also not be ruled out, a Supreme Court lawyer in Delhi opined.
