US case raises alarm over Botafogo SAF's future, details | OneFootball

US case raises alarm over Botafogo SAF's future, details | OneFootball

In partnership with

Yahoo sports
Icon: RTI Esporte

RTI Esporte

·23 September 2026

US case raises alarm over Botafogo SAF's future, details

Article image:US case raises alarm over Botafogo SAF's future, details

The creditors’ meeting of Credivalores/Crediservicios S.A. will resume this Wednesday (23) in the United States. The meeting is part of the company’s insolvency proceedings and involves GDA Luma Capital Management, which is financially and corporately linked to Botafogo.

RTI Esporte Agency has learned that the meeting is a continuation of the procedure provided for under Section 341(a) of U.S. bankruptcy law. Trustee Salvatore LaMonica filed the notice for the new session on September 9.


OneFootball Videos


The case, registered under number 1:24-bk-10837, includes GDA Luma among the related parties. The company is also a defendant in a lawsuit involving claims for recovery of funds or assets, preference, and fraudulent transfer.

GDA is a creditor, but it still does not control the SAF

At Botafogo, GDA currently acts as a creditor. This means the company is owed money by the SAF, not that it holds control of the club. The relationship began in February 2026, when GDA granted a US$25 million loan.

After the deductions provided for in the contract, about US$22.8 million was actually made available. In the judicial reorganization, the company appears with a claim of approximately R$186.8 million.

The contract established guarantees related to revenue and the squad’s receivables rights, as well as mechanisms involving SAF shares. In certain default situations, the obligation could reach at least US$55 million (R$273 million at the current exchange rate).

Agreement provides for future change of control

In June, for example, Botafogo and GDA signed a binding investment agreement valued at US$105 million. The transaction provides for the entry of the group led by Gabriel de Alba and the future transfer of 90% of the SAF’s shares.

It is important to distinguish between the two situations: being a creditor does not automatically make GDA the controlling party. The company holds a claim against the SAF, while control depends on the effective transfer of the shares provided for in the transaction.

Therefore, although GDA Luma Capital Management has already made contributions and is directly participating in the financial restructuring, it has not yet formally assumed shareholding control of the Lone Star club.

John Textor still challenges the shareholding structure

The transfer of the shares is also tied to the dispute involving Eagle, Lyon, and John Textor. The former controlling shareholder is challenging the corporate situation in court and claims to have rights over the shares of SAF Botafogo.

The board has moved forward with measures to reorganize the shareholding structure, while an Extraordinary General Meeting is expected to discuss the SAF’s capital increase. In this context, the Credivalores meeting takes on added importance.

GDA appears simultaneously in insolvency proceedings in the United States, as a creditor of Botafogo and as a potential future controlling shareholder of the SAF, if the share transfer provided for in the agreement is completed.

The proceedings are legally distinct, and one does not automatically determine the outcome of the other. The situation, however, puts GDA’s corporate position under scrutiny as the company tries to move forward with the transaction that could change control of Botafogo’s football operations.

To be legally precise, I would mainly revise the idea that the ruling “recognizes rights” in a generic way. It has legal effect in the United States, but by itself does not produce any change in the Brazilian corporate structure.

In Brazil, recognition by the Superior Court of Justice is the mechanism that allows a foreign decision to produce effects, pursuant to Article 961 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a rule, the STJ conducts a limited review and does not reexamine the merits.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.

View publisher imprint