Pursuant to Case No 13-23855-GT involving the bankruptcy of Prithvi Catalytic Inc., on April 8, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania — made an order compelling Madhavi Vuppalapati to attend an examination pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
Kyko Global commenced proceedings against Madhavi Vuppalapati, her husband Anandhan Jayaraman, Prasad Rao Guru Pandyar, Srinivas Sista, Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd. and several other individuals and companies, making allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and of financial fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud. According to Kyko Global’s Complaint , Prithvi Information Solutions entered into an agreement with Kyko Global for factoring services. Pursuant to this agreement, Prithvi was to sell to Kyko some of its customer account receivables for IT services and authorize direct payment on those customer accounts receivable to be made to Kyko in exchange for a portion of the amount outstanding from its customers to be paid immediately by Kyko.
Prithvi is alleged to have falsified information for over two years, thereby defrauding Kyko. According to court documents, the internal investigation revealed that Madhavi Vuppalapati and Prithvi Information Solutions had “created fictitious customers and bogus invoices to deceive Kyko and obtain monies from it.” These court documents list out some of the companies that were falsely misrepresented, including big names in business such as Dick’s Sporting Goods, Enterprise Product Partners, Financial Oxygen, Huawei, and L3 Communications.
Prithvi Catalytic was one of the defendants in these proceedings, until it subsequently filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
According to court documents, the court rejected Ms. Vuppalapati’s arguments to oppose Kyko Global’s motion to compel her attendance at an examination, and made the following finding:
“Hiding behind procedural safeguards designed to protect third-parties, Vuppalapati forgets her role in this case. She is not a third-party witness that, by chance, has information related to this bankruptcy estate. Rather, it was her signature on the petition that requested bankruptcy relief from this Court. She submitted declarations to this Court regarding [Prithvi Catalytic’s] assets, liabilities, and business affairs. She is the individual who verified the identities of [Prithvi Catalytic’s] shareholders, which is among the information Kyko seeks from the examination.”
The court further stated that it “…will consider imposing sanctions (including, without limitation, monetary sanctions), and may hold parties (including Vuppalapati) in contempt for failing to act in good faith and otherwise comply with the terms of [the] Order.”
The court ordered that the examination take place within 30 days.
Release ID: 40651