BDO, the auditor for Indian edtech startup Byju’s, has resigned with immediate effect, marking the second auditor departure for the embattled startup in about a year and further intensifying concerns about its financial health and governance.

In a scathing resignation letter, BDO subsidiary MSKA highlighted multiple issues with Byju’s, including significant delays in financial reporting, inadequate management support, and concerns over the company’s ability to recover substantial dues from a Dubai-based entity.

The auditor’s exit comes as Byju’s, once India’s most valuable startup with a $22 billion valuation, grapples with a series of crises, including a recent Supreme Court decision to resume insolvency proceedings against the startup.

Deloitte, Byju’s previous auditor, and the startup’s key board members resigned last year, citing governance issues at the firm.

MSKA, appointed in August 2023 for a five-year term, said in its resignation letter: “There has been inadequate support from the management of the Company in providing us the books of account, information and explanations sought by us and sufficient appropriate audit evidence to enable us to complete the audit for the Financial Year 2022-23.”

In a statement, a Byju’s spokesperson said BDO’s requests to the firm required “crossing ethical and legal boundaries.”

“The real reason for BDO’s resignation is BYJU’S firm refusal to backdate its reports, while BDO went to the extent of recommending a firm that could facilitate such an illegal activity. Multiple call recordings exist, where  BDO representatives explicitly suggest backdating these documents, which BYJU’S refused to do. BYJU’S strongly believes that this is the main reason for their resignation,” Byju’s spokesperson added. 

MSKA disclosed that it has filed Form ADT 4, suggesting potential fraud or illegal activities within the company.

The resignation letter also highlighted concerns about various ongoing litigation against Byju’s and its board, including initiation of liquidation proceedings by lenders, and allegations of oppression and mismanagement by minority shareholders.

MSKA noted instances where Byju’s failed to share critical information, such as notices for EGM and insolvency proceedings, with the auditing team.

The auditor’s departure adds to the mounting challenges facing Byju’s, which has seen its valuation plummet amid missed financial deadlines, revenue shortfalls, and conflicts with investors. Top backers, including Prosus and Peak XV, have previously alleged governance issues and sought legal action to remove founder Byju Raveendran.

The edtech firm’s troubles have escalated in recent months, with the Indian Supreme Court recently putting on hold a tribunal ruling that had halted insolvency proceedings against the company. U.S. creditors are seeking to recover $1 billion from Byju’s, adding to the pressure on the once-celebrated startup.

09/06/2024 – 04:15 PM

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
TPG RE Finance Trust, Inc. (NYSE: TRTX) (“TRTX” or the “Company”) today announced the Company’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.3906 per share of 6.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Series C Preferred Stock”) for the third quarter of 2024. The Series C Preferred Stock dividend is payable on September 30, 2024 to preferred stockholders of record as of September 20, 2024.

ABOUT TRTX

TRTX is a commercial real estate finance company that originates, acquires, and manages primarily first mortgage loans secured by institutional properties located in primary and select secondary markets in the United States. The Company is externally managed by TPG RE Finance Trust Management, L.P., a part of TPG Real Estate, which is the real estate investment platform of global alternative asset management firm TPG Inc. (NASDAQ: TPG). For more information regarding TRTX, visit https://www.tpgrefinance.com/.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This press release contains “forward‐looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward‐looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation, risks and uncertainties relating to: the performance of the Company’s investments; global economic trends and economic conditions, including heightened inflation, slower growth or recession, changes to fiscal and monetary policy, higher interest rates, stress to the commercial banking systems of the U.S. and Western Europe, labor shortages, currency fluctuations and challenges in global supply chains; the Company’s ability to originate loans that are in the pipeline and under evaluation by the Company; financing needs and arrangements; and the risks, uncertainties and factors set forth under the heading “Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, as such risk factors may be updated from time to time in the Company’s periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), which are accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Forward-looking statements are generally identifiable by use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,” “intend,” “expect,” “endeavor,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “believe,” “could,” “project,” “predict,” “continue,” “payable” or other similar words or expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions, discuss future expectations, describe existing or future plans and strategies, contain projections of results of operations, liquidity and/or financial condition or state other forward-looking information. Statements, among others, relating to the payment of dividends on a future date are forward-looking statements. The ability of TRTX to predict future events or conditions or their impact or the actual effect of existing or future plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Although the Company believes that such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, actual results and performance in the future could differ materially from those set forth in or implied by such forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect the Company’s views only as of the date of this press release. Except as required by law, neither the Company nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the forward-looking statements appearing in this press release. The Company does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this press release as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Past performance is not indicative nor a guarantee of future returns.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240906207125/en/

INVESTOR RELATIONS

+1 (212) 405-8500

IR@tpgrefinance.com

MEDIA

TPG RE Finance Trust, Inc.

Courtney Power

+1 (415) 743-1550

media@tpg.com

Source: TPG RE Finance Trust, Inc.

Future of Cherry Hill Golf Course Discussed

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Finance Committee, September 3, 2024

by Art and Maura Keene

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. It can be viewed here.

Present
Bob Hegner (Chair, District 5), Cathy Schoen (District 1), Andy Steinberg (at-large), Mandi Jo Hanneke (at-large). Nonvoting members: Bernie Kubiak and Thomas Porter.

Staff: Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of the Council), Melissa Zawadski (Finance Director), David Ziomek (Assistant Town Manager), Reynaud Harp (Recreation Director), Holly Drake (Comptroller)

Public Comment

Three members of the public offered comment, all in opposition to the Jones Library project. Janet Keller asked the committee to “consider the long-term costs of expanding the Jones Library and competing critical needs to repair and replace other Town buildings, roads, and infrastructure.” Maria Kopicki wondered how the committee would “square the circle” of a project costing $7 million mo43  than authorized borrowing with value engineering far less than that amount. Arlie Gould expressed concern over the loss of the Historic Tax credits and high risk of losing NEH and HUD grants totaling another ~$2 million.

Finance Committee Receives Limited Update on Jones Library Building Project
The committee had last discussed the Jones Library Building Project prior to the Town Council’s vote in December 2023 to authorize an additional $10 million for a total of $46.1 in debt authorization for the project. Since then, a single bid was received in April 2024 that was rejected because it was nearly $7 million higher than the authorization. The Library Trustees and Town Manager gave the go ahead to ask for a six month extension from the Massachusetts Board of Library Commission (MBLC) to pursue a rebidding process this fall after value engineering to decrease the cost. The Town Manager signed a contract with the design team from Finegold Alexander Architecture (FAA) for approximately $500,000 to do the redesign with the understanding that the town would be reimbursed from the Jones endowment. An original value engineering list approved by the Jones Library Building Committee totaled ~$2.9 million but approximately half of that has since been reinstated due to concerns of donors, the Design Review Board, the Planning Board, and the Amherst Historical Commission. It has also come to light that $1.8 million in Historic Tax credits that have been counted toward fundraising have been denied  (twice) by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The library remains $900,000 in arrears of its promised $2 million reimbursement to the Town due at the end of January 2024. None of these developments were discussed at the meeting.

Finance Director Melissa Zawadski provided a single document which she stated was based on information provided by the library team. The figures provided indicated that nearly $7 million was still needed in fundraising to reach the $46.1 million cost estimate (they did not account for the bid that came in ~$7 million over that). The Community Campaign and Foundation and Corporate Funding lines included both pledged and received monies.

Chair Bob Hegner asked about the federal grants listed that total $2.1 million from NEH and HUD saying that “my understanding is that the library is basically in the process of redoing their paperwork to get these grants”. Resident member Bernie Kubiak argued that “These shouldn’t be considered at risk because they’re not. They can still get them and in fact the state historic commission could even change their minds [about rejecting the historic tax credits] if they choose.” 

Cathy Schoen disagreed, noting that the grants require a Section 106 review and inquired about its timing. She said, “One of the advisements on the federal site is make sure you go through that review before you sign a contract for the building, you can read it as before you go out to bid, because if there’s something you could change you might put it at risk.” Zawadski did not have the answer and Hegner suggested that the information could be provided at the Town Council meeting on September 9. 

Hegner indicated that he had  expected that someone from the library would attend.

Kubiak argued that the current state of project finances should not be a concern of either the Finance Committee or the Town Council at this time. He  suggested that the library trustees are elected officials, know what they are doing, and should be trusted to manage the project. Kubiak bemoaned the growing criticism and questioning of the project, suggesting that the trustees should be trusted to do the work they were elected to do. He concluded,   “They [the Library Trustees] understand what the limits are and I think they would admit that if the prices are out of control, the project is moot.”

Schoen countered that “the council does need to be financially accountable to the taxpayers” noting that if the current estimated cost exceeds the $46 million authorization or “if the $46 million has a bigger fundraising gap because the funds haven’t come in, the town is the one who’s going to be at risk.” 

Finance Committee Discusses Cherry Hill Golf Course Update
Recreation Director Rey Harp was asked to provide an update on the finances of the Cherry Hill Golf Course. He reported that the course “is making money right now and  revenue is coming in in advance of those of of expenses”. He noted that the high usage during the pandemic has come down since “but we were able to not not lose that much over the course of the last few years in terms of in terms of active play. We’ve been trying to be creative about using the space offseason.” 

Data was shared showing that revenues have exceeded expenses since 2021. Hegner, however, noted that if capital and fringe benefit expenditures were included, “it doesn’t look like you’re making money you’re actually losing a little bit”. He calculated losses of  $177,000 in 2022, $58,000 in 2023, and $37,000 in 2024 and encouraged trying to find ways to increase revenues. Mandi Jo Hanneke agreed that there seems to have been some improvements in revenues but asked larger questions: “Should we as a municipality be running a golf course?” and “What other uses would this land have?”. 

Harp responded by pointing out that the purchase of the course predated his tenure and saying that “My interest as the director now is to is to allow that asset to grow as much as I can and to make money off of it” adding that “If the town told me that it wasn’t in our best interest financially in terms of business’ sake, then I could make a pivot away from it, but as long as we have that asset, as long as that’s underneath Recreation, we are going to continue.” 

Harp also made the case that the facility attracts and serves a diverse demographic. “Cherry Hill is not a course that operates for the town elites. It’s not a place that big money comes in to sort of do big money stuff.” and “If you go out there and run through the parking lot, you will see a really interesting cross-section of a bunch of people who don’t do other things with the town.”

He also noted that reductions in staff to protect revenue “put a lot of strain on the people who work there – on our ground staff and on our clubhouse staff” but that “as much stress as it gives us, we think that we’re bringing in money and we’re doing the best of our service that we possibly can. So I defend it because it’s ours, but I also defend it because I think it fits a mission that we can all get behind.”

Schoen supported Harp’s work saying “I think it’s a pretty amazing resource and the management of it,  the expense line has not just stayed down, but it’s lower than it used to be” and noted that the facilities were well used and used as a selling point to live in North Amherst.”

Andy Steinberg expressed some concern that “the projected 2025 budget looked a little worse than prior years as far as the balance between revenue and expenses.” 

Dave Ziomek added “My worry is what happens when staff turns over, what happens when we get retirements? Can we hire people and expect the same kind of commitment that we have there now?”

Zawadski and Holly Drake pointed out that because the operations of this type of facility are so weather dependent, they are very conservative with projections so the figures for the upcoming year may make them appear worse than they will be. 

Hegner asked Ziomek to look further into the demographics of users to see “If we’re not just serving one narrow slice of the the community or we’re serving a broader spectrum of people.”