Over a month after Prosus' Russell Dreisenstock stepped down from Byju's board, the global investor slams the edtech major for not heeding advice on strategic, legal and corporate governance
When the largest non-founder shareholder laments in public, it reveals a lot about the biggest privately-held edtech player of India. “Despite repeated efforts from our director, executive leadership at Byju’s regularly disregarded advice and recommendations relating to strategic, operational, legal, and corporate governance matters,” underlines Prosus in an official statement released on Tuesday, July 25. The global investor, which holds about 9.6 percent stake in Byju’s, says that the edtech company grew considerably since Prosus made its maiden investment in 2018. “But, over time, its reporting and governance structures did not evolve sufficiently for a company of that scale,” underlines the media release that comes over a month after Prosus’ Russell Dreisenstock stepped down from Byju’s board in June this year.
The audited financial results of Byju’s have been delayed by more than two years. “The decision to step down from the board was taken after it became clear that he (Byju’s) was unable to fulfil his fiduciary duty to serve the long-term interests of the company and its stakeholders,” says Prosus, explaining its move. The investor, though, also adds it continues to believe in the ‘potential’ of Byju’s. “Although we no longer have a representative serving on the board, we continue to believe in the potential of Byju’s,” the release adds.
Corporate governance analysts and industry observers, though, are not impressed either by a delayed explanation by a prominent investor or an excessive delay in filing of the audit financial results by Byju’s. Here’s why.
“Rather than resigning, the investor directors could have done its stakeholders a big help by forcing Byju Raveendran to step down and replacing him with able management,” says Shriram Subramanian, founder of InGovern, a corporate governance advisory firm. The fiduciary duty of the Prosus’ director, he underlines, is to safeguard the interests of the company and other stakeholders and that would have been best served by forcing out the founders from the board. Obviously, some of these matters may be in the shareholders' agreement where the founder seems to have the upper hand over the investors, he adds.