London High Court Grants Textor Interim Injunction Blocking Eagle Bidco Administrators from Selling 90% Botafogo SAF Stake Until at Least 9 September 2026
On 12 August 2026, the London Commercial Court (King's Bench Division) granted John Textor an interim injunction restraining the administrators of Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited, appointed by creditor Ares, from selling the company's 90% shareholding in Brazilian football club Botafogo SAF until at least 9 September 2026, when the matter is listed to be heard again. The injunction is a status-quo preservation order, not a finding on who owns the shares. The court applied the American Cyanamid test, which requires only that there is a "serious issue to be tried" on the merits, a relatively low threshold consistent with interlocutory relief. Textor's underlying claim is proprietary in nature: he asserts that Eagle Bidco never paid the R$150.3m consideration due under the November 2022 share purchase agreement, meaning the shares were never validly transferred. Cork Gully are the appointed administrators. The sale they were preparing to complete was to GDA Luma Capital (Gabriel de Alba) at a binding offer price of US$130m gross (approximately US$105m net after deducting a prior loan). Ares holds a secured claim of approximately US$547.4m. Eagle Bidco also sold its interest in Olympique Lyonnais to Michele Kang's Olympe Bidco for US$30m, completing on 26 June 2026. The injunction's practical reach is limited: English interim injunctions operate in personam (binding only on the parties before the English court) and are not self-executing against Brazilian-situs assets. The STJ (Brazil's Superior Court of Justice) generally does not homologate interim foreign relief for lack of finality, and a Rio court has already refused Textor parallel freezing relief.
Why this matters
This matter illustrates the tension between English insolvency law (which gives administrators broad powers to realise assets for creditors) and a shareholder's claim that the administrator is trying to sell property the debtor company does not legally own. The American Cyanamid threshold is deliberately low at the interlocutory stage, meaning the injunction does not validate Textor's underlying claim: the September hearing will be the first real test of whether his proprietary argument has sufficient merit to justify continuing restraint. The cross-border enforceability problem is acute: if Cork Gully and Ares are the relevant English-jurisdiction actors, the injunction can bite on them directly, but its force in Brazil depends entirely on Brazilian court recognition, which the sources indicate is doubtful.
On the Ground
This matter engages insolvency and restructuring, banking and finance (secured lending and enforcement), and commercial litigation practices simultaneously. Ares, as secured creditor with a claim of approximately US$547.4m, needs advice on the effect of the injunction on the administrator's ability to complete the GDA Luma sale and on any indemnity obligations. Cork Gully, as administrator, needs advice on their duties where the sale is restrained pending a third-party ownership claim. A trainee on this file would prepare the disclosure review bundle for the September hearing, assist with chronology preparation covering the ownership chain and the administration timeline, and coordinate court filing and service of the injunction materials.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How does an English interim injunction operate in the context of a cross-border insolvency where the assets in dispute are located in Brazil, and what are its limits?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved