Learnfluence Education Limited IPO

01At a glance

What the company does — runs digitally enabled coaching centres for commerce and finance qualifications: ACCA, Chartered Accountancy, CMA (India), CMA (USA), CPA (USA) and Company Secretary, in classrooms and online through its learning app, from 15 campuses in Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (DRHP p.25). It also offers campus coaching for ACCA and CMA USA combined with online degrees (DRHP p.25).

Who pays it — students, graduates and working professionals, through course fees (DRHP p.25, DRHP p.148). ACCA coaching was 47.69% of FY25 revenue (DRHP p.44). Campuses in Kerala provided 75.97% of FY25 revenue, online 18.99% and students outside India 5.05% (DRHP p.71).

Why it is raising money — ₹690.00 million for new campuses, ₹618.75 million for sales and marketing, ₹223.10 million to repay loans, ₹213.30 million for lease payments on existing long-term campuses, and the rest for general purposes (DRHP p.26).

How fast it has grown — revenue from ₹327 million in FY23 to ₹720 million in FY24 and ₹1,289 million in FY25 (DRHP p.148).

The one thing to understand — a fast-growing regional coaching business whose brand came from its promoter's own firm. Orwel Lionel co-founded the partnership Lakshya CA Campus in 2012; the company, incorporated in 2021, took over that business, and a March 2025 addendum set the brand's value at ₹540 million within total consideration of ₹574.65 million, payable once an IPO or pre-IPO funding began (DRHP p.64, DRHP p.202, DRHP p.256).

02The business, in plain words

A coaching company enrols students preparing for professional accounting and finance exams, teaches them in its campuses or online, supplies study material, and charges fees per course.

A commerce graduate in Ernakulam wants the ACCA qualification → the graduate enrols at a Lakshya campus and pays the course fee → faculty teach the papers in class and through the app → the graduate sits the exams set by the qualifying body.

The company admitted 11,537 students in FY25 and had 157 faculty (DRHP p.148).

Earnings equation: Profit ≈ students admitted × average fee − faculty, rent and marketing − brand amortisation. Average revenue per student was ₹111,710 in FY25, and EBITDA margin 29.93% (DRHP p.148).

03Where the money comes from

Source: DRHP p.44, DRHP p.71. Course fees add up to 89.27% of FY25 revenue; the rest is other operating revenue such as exam fee collections (DRHP p.44, DRHP p.148).

04The growth record

Source: DRHP p.148, DRHP p.296.

05What the growth is made of

Both more students and higher fees per student. Admissions rose from 6,625 in FY23 to 11,537 in FY25, and average revenue per student from ₹49,324 to ₹111,710 (DRHP p.148). Faculty rose from 71 to 157 and employees from 198 to 747 over the same years (DRHP p.148). The document itself says revenues "have grown sharply over a short period of time, and such growth may not be sustainable" (DRHP p.30).

06Earnings quality

Operating cash flow was ₹371.36 million over FY23 to FY25 against profit of ₹312.76 million (our arithmetic, DRHP p.148, DRHP p.296). Outflows on intangible assets, including through business combination, were ₹191.45 million in FY24 and ₹203.02 million in FY25 (DRHP p.296). The ₹540 million brand is amortised over 15 years, about ₹36 million a year, and is tested for impairment (our arithmetic, DRHP p.64). The statutory auditors noted instances of non-compliance with Sections 185 and 186 of the Companies Act on loans and investments; the company says advances to the Lakshya firms were mistakenly treated as loans and that loans to directors fell under an all-employee loan policy (DRHP p.66).

07The balance sheet

Source: DRHP p.28, DRHP p.148. In February 2025 Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited subscribed to 250,000 compulsorily convertible preference shares at ₹1,000 each, which is ₹250 million (our arithmetic, DRHP p.104). At March 2025, ₹133.57 million of the purchase consideration was still payable to Lakshya CA Campus (DRHP p.33).

08What the money is for

Source: DRHP p.26. The company has not yet identified the locations of the new campuses; costs are based on a turnkey contractor's quotations or management estimates (DRHP p.30). A pre-IPO placement of up to ₹400 million may be made before the RHP (DRHP p.25).

09Who is selling

Source: DRHP p.25, DRHP p.27. The shares offered are about 7% of the pre-offer equity (our arithmetic).

10Promoters

The promoter is Orwel Lionel, who established Lakshya CA Campus with another partner in 2012 (DRHP p.25, DRHP p.202). Lakshya CA Campus, Lakshya CA Campus, Calicut and Thinkahead Education Private Limited are promoter-group entities authorised to carry on a similar line of business; the document says they do not currently compete with the company (DRHP p.66). Orwel Lionel was paid ₹11.00 million in FY25 and the company gave him loans of ₹31.10 million in FY25 (DRHP p.31, DRHP p.32).

11Who already owns it

Source: DRHP p.27. The last row is our arithmetic. Fully diluted figures assume the preference shares convert (DRHP p.27). Holders of the preference shares include Authum Investment and Infrastructure, converting at ₹73.26 a share, and Invicta Continuum Fund I (DRHP p.104).

12What changed just before the IPO

• Brand value fixed — ₹540 million under the March 2025 addendum (DRHP p.256).
• Outside money — preference shares issued from February to August 2025 (DRHP p.104).
• Scale — admissions up 41% in FY25 (our arithmetic, DRHP p.148).

13Capacity and expansion

Capacity is campuses, faculty and the online platform: 15 campuses in three states (DRHP p.25). The proceeds fund new campuses whose locations are not yet identified (DRHP p.26, DRHP p.30).

14Market size and industry structure

The CRISIL report cited in the offer document says coaching for professional certifications (ACCA, CA, CMA, CPA, CS) grew at 14.8% a year from FY2020 to FY2025 and projects ₹70–73 billion by FY2030, and puts the company's FY25 share at 3.26% (DRHP p.25). Those projections are CRISIL's, and newboard has not tested them.

15Competitive position

What the document claims, and what it rests on:

• The "Lakshya" brand as its main asset (DRHP p.64, DRHP p.68).
• Blended delivery — classroom and app (DRHP p.25).

Against that: dependence on Kerala and on a few courses, on faculty, on student results, rented campuses and seasonality (DRHP p.30).

16Peers the company named

None. The document says no listed Indian company has a comparable size, scale and business model, and gives no peer P/E (DRHP p.146, DRHP p.147).

No P/E is possible for the company until a price band is set.

17Risks, in plain words

• Students. Revenue depends on enrolments and results (DRHP p.30).
• Few courses. ACCA and CA were two-thirds of FY25 revenue (DRHP p.44).
• Kerala. 76% of revenue from its campuses (DRHP p.71).
• Leases. No campus or office is owned (DRHP p.30).
• Faculty. Losing teachers would hurt delivery (DRHP p.30).

18Litigation and regulatory matters

Source: DRHP p.29, DRHP p.30. The document says cases filed against Indian Institute of Commerce, Lakshya, Lakshya CA Campus or Lakshya Education Private Limited are wrongly pleaded and belong to the company (DRHP p.404). They include multiple cheque-dishonour complaints by a former faculty member over unpaid remuneration (DRHP p.404).

19Related-party transactions

Payments to Lakshya CA Campus against the business-transfer consideration were ₹194.51 million in FY24 and ₹214.98 million in FY25 (DRHP p.31).

20What the offer document does not say

In the sections read for this study, the document does not give:

• How the ₹540 million brand value was arrived at, beyond mutual determination by the two parties, in the pages read (DRHP p.256).
• Who the other partner in Lakshya CA Campus is, in the pages read.
• Pass rates of students, in the pages read.
• Where the new campuses will be (DRHP p.30).
• The price band, lot size or issue dates, which is normal at DRHP stage.

21Five questions for management

1. How was the ₹540 million value of the Lakshya brand set, and who received the consideration?
2. Why use offer proceeds to pay rent on existing campuses?
3. What drove average revenue per student from ₹49,324 to ₹111,710 in two years?
4. What are the 17 criminal proceedings against the company about?
5. Why were loans given to the promoter, and are they repaid?

1Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 1 document the company filed. The 35 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.