one of the main shareholders of Sociedade Anônima de Futebol do , brought to the center of the debate possible impacts on the corporate structure of Galo Holding and on the institutional environment of SAF. Vorcaro, who holds 26.9% of the shares in the company created to manage football in Minas Gerais.
Last Thursday, the team announced, without giving further details, that its shareholders decided to remove Vorcaro from the Board of Directors, but this does not completely rule out the discussion about the origin of the money and the consequences for the club.
The businessman was detained by the Federal Police on suspicion of involvement in the issuance of false credit bonds by financial institutions. He is the second largest shareholder of Galo Holding, behind only his family, which owns 41.8%.
Continues after advertising
The initial contribution of almost R$300 million made by Vorcaro to buy his stake in SAF, via Fundo Galo Forte, is under suspicion for possible money laundering and concealment of assets. The arrest occurred one day after the Central Bank decreed the extrajudicial liquidation of Banco Master, of which the businessman was one of the owners, which interrupted negotiations to sell the institution to the Fictor Group.
Atlético is not the target of the investigations and does not appear to be a participant in any irregularity highlighted by the Public Ministry.
The businessman had previously been investigated in Operation Hidden Carbon, which investigated money laundering and fraud in the fuel sector involving the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC). Now, with new fronts of investigation, experts consulted assess how Atlético’s SAF could be impacted and what actions should be taken by the club and other investors.
For Talita Garcez, partner at Garcez Advogados e Associados, the repercussion tends to be more institutional and image-related than legal. “The arrest of a shareholder does not generate automatic liability for Atlético SAF or other investors. The impacts, in practice, tend to be reputational, such as image degradation, with possible questions from sponsors and the sector. If the problem is just the shareholder’s personal problem, there is no provision for a sporting penalty for the club”, he states.
According to her, the club needs to reinforce internal mechanisms and routines for checking its partners. “To protect itself, in addition to cooperating with the authorities and reinforcing its governance mechanisms, the club needs to adopt a permanent policy of due diligence about its investors and partners. This means carrying out, from the moment the shareholder enters, a prior check of integrity, financial capacity and reputational history”, he explains.
Garcez also points out that Atlético can review processes and even remove shareholders from any strategic functions. “In the current scenario, Atlético can review its internal processes, reinforce financial controls and, if the shareholder has influence in the administration, temporarily remove him to avoid conflicts”, he says.
Continues after advertising
Regarding the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission, she points out that “the CVM can initiate sanctioning administrative proceedings to investigate possible violations of capital market rules”, with the possibility of fines, warnings and even disqualification of managers.
Cristiano Caús, partner responsible for the Sports Law area at CCLA Advogados, also highlights that there are no immediate effects for the SAF. “The arrest of a shareholder does not generate automatic effects on Atlético or other investors, but it can have significant indirect consequences, especially if there is a suspicion of the illicit origin of the resources contributed to SAF”, he assesses.
Among the risks, Caús cites internal repercussions. “There is a risk of judicial blocking of the investigated shareholder’s actions, reputational impacts, pressure to reinforce governance and the possible need to replace functions if he occupies a strategic position. This entire corporate dynamic will also depend greatly on the content and rite that is set out in Atlético’s Bylaws and any shareholder agreements”, he points out.
Continues after advertising
The lawyer reinforces that the club must follow strict governance protocols. “The club must reinforce compliance and governance mechanisms, carrying out an independent internal investigation, reviewing due diligence to certify the origin of the resources used in contributions and documenting the traceability of investments”, he states.
He also notes that there may be corporate consequences: “The position held on the boards may become vacant or be replaced, depending on what is provided for in the Shareholders’ Agreement”.
Caús also emphasizes that there is no immediate sporting risk. “As a rule, a club cannot suffer any sporting punishment. FIFA and CBF only punish sporting institutions when there is a connection between the offense and the sporting activity. Therefore, the isolated arrest of a shareholder does not result in sporting punishment for Atlético”, he says.
Continues after advertising
As for the CVM, he highlights that the authority has broad powers to supervise the funds involved. “The CVM may initiate sanctioning administrative proceedings to investigate especially the fund’s participants, and may adopt precautionary measures such as suspension of operations by the FIP and the removal of administrators or managers”, he explains. The sanctions, according to him, fall on the fund administrators, and not directly on the club.
The analyzes converge on the perception that the main effects should be concentrated in the corporate, regulatory and reputational sphere, without immediate sporting repercussions. Still, the case requires attention and quick responses from SAF managers, both to safeguard internal governance and to preserve the trust of investors and commercial partners.
