OYO’s response to Zostel’s press outreach

OYO’s response to Zostel’s press outreach

OYO deplores Zostel’s repeated attempts at misrepresenting case facts and threats of forum hunting

  • OYO condemns Zostel’s self-serving misrepresentation of case facts to media and it is an attempt to overreach Delhi HC proceedings
  • Zostel’s baseless claims will not become valid by threats of forum hunting
  • Zostel’s earlier petitions asking for interim relief from the Delhi HC have been inconclusive till date
  • The arbitrator had ruled that definitive agreements, which are extremely important for any M&A transaction, were neither finalized nor agreed upon
  • Zostel’s actions, petitions and claims are not consistent with the Arbitrator’s Award

New Delhi, September 28, 2021 –OYO condemns Zostel’s self-serving misrepresentation of case facts and it is an attempt to overreach Delhi HC proceedings. After multiple attempts in the courts and arbitration tribunal, Zostel’s communication shows unnecessary and repetitive efforts to create a wrong perception. This shows a pattern of Zostel trying to distract OYO from pursuing its business goals. OYO is willing to utilize the resources in law to protect its interests. 

Zostel had attempted similar subversive tactics in August 2021 by filing a barrage of petitions in the Delhi High Court even while its previous petitions seeking similar relief were pending. Specifically, Zostel had received a notice as part of OYO’s Section 34 appeal and yet has gone ahead and filed under Section 9 for interim relief. The repeated reliefs being sought are not consistent with an award by the Arbitration Tribunal from March 2021 which has not granted any award for issue of any shareholding in OYO to Zostel. It had merely given them the direction for seeking specific performance of the non-binding term sheet. Zostel was also not granted any monetary damage it sought from OYO, save for the costs of arbitration. The Tribunal had ruled and categorically acknowledged that the definitive agreements were neither finalized nor agreed upon. OYO reiterates that the entire process was merely at the stage of exploratory discussions, and no definitive agreements were finalized or executed between the parties.

Since 2016, immediately after the merger talks were called off, Zostel and its directors have used multiple tactics, from sending letters carrying false allegations to OYO’s management to writing to shareholders, for intimidating and pressurizing us to submit to their unreasonable demands. OYO has also been given to believe that Zostel has approached potential investors, falsely claiming that it is entitled to a stake in OYO. 


Statement by OYO Counsel  

Considering that the matter is sub-judice, we would only like to comment on what is absolutely necessary to dispel any misinformation campaign. The petition filed by Zostel seeks reliefs that are beyond the scope of the Award. The Award does not provide any relief that entitles them to seek to freeze OYO’s shareholding pattern, in any manner whatsoever. OYO’s stand is that this Petition is not maintainable and in any case without merit.

Without considering the grounds of challenge by OYO of the Award, the Award in itself has not issued Zostel or any of its shareholders any shares in OYO. The only relief, apart from costs, which has been granted to Zostel, is to initiate “appropriate proceedings” to execute Definitive Agreements and seek specific performance of the Term Sheet. As such, till the time that parties do not come to an agreement on the terms of the Definitive Agreements and the same are not executed, no right whatsoever arises in favour of any party for any type of shares to be issued in OYO.