18th September 2026
What the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit actually decided on 15 September 2026, why Eagle Bidco did not defend, and why the declaration collides with the Brazilian share register, the CAM-FGV arbitration and the 24 September capital increase

Summary

On 15 September 2026 a Florida state trial court entered a default judgment declaring that the 11 November 2022 share purchase agreement between John Textor and Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited is void ab initio for failure of consideration, and that Textor is the owner of 90,000 Class B ordinary shares in S.A.F. Botafogo. Textor has characterised the order as ending the ownership dispute. The Brazilian and English records do not support that characterisation, and the order is considerably weaker than its headline suggests.
Three features of the order matter more than its declaratory language. First, it was entered by default: Eagle Bidco, in administration under Cork Gully LLP since 27 March 2026, chose not to appear, so no adversarial testing of the choice-of-law, insolvency or evidential questions took place. Second, it is a partial judgment — the court expressly retained jurisdiction over the remaining relief sought against the two Brazilian co-defendants. Third, and decisively, the declaration that 90,000 Class B shares represent “90% of the total and voting capital” of the company was already inaccurate on the day it was made. Following the associative club’s exercise of a subscription bonus on 7 July 2026, the Brazilian register records Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas at 51% and Eagle Bidco at 49%.

Key judgements

• The court is a state trial court, not a federal court. The order was made by the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida’s general-jurisdiction trial court, the forum consistent with Textor’s own residency. Reporting that a “US court” has ruled on Brazilian club ownership overstates the institutional weight of the decision. It is a first-instance, single-judge, uncontested order.
• The declaration binds one party only. A declaratory judgment operates in personam between Textor and Eagle Bidco. It does not bind S.A.F. Botafogo, Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas, GDA Luma Capital Partners, Ares Management, Cork Gully LLP, the CAM-FGV tribunal, the CBF or the Brazilian courts, none of which was a party to Counts I and II.
• The 90% figure is stale. The share count in the order may be accurate; the percentage is not. Eagle Bidco’s holding was reduced to 49% on 7 July 2026 when the associative club triggered the subscription bonus in the shareholders’ agreement. A Florida court declaring a party to be the owner of “90%” of a Brazilian company is describing a capital structure that ceased to exist ten weeks earlier.
• Non-participation by the administrators was rational, not conceded. Cork Gully’s duty runs to Eagle Bidco’s creditors, principally Ares Management on a claim of approximately US$547.4m. Defending a Florida action over a minority stake in a company in recuperação judicial with approximately R$2.7bn of liabilities and negative net equity would have consumed estate funds to preserve an asset of marginal realisable value. Silence is the predictable commercial answer, and it is not an admission.
• Recognition in Brazil is the real test, and it is a hard one. Homologation before the STJ is a juízo de delibação, a formal review, not a rehearing. But the formal requirements bite: competent authority, regular service, efficacy in the country of origin, no offence to Brazilian res judicata, official translation, and no manifest offence to public order. The arbitration clause, the STJ’s own May 2026 ruling, and Brazilian company law on the transfer of registered shares each give a respondent material grounds of opposition.
• The practical value of the order is leverage, not title. Its function is to raise execution risk for any buyer of the Eagle Bidco stake and to give Textor a document to lodge in the Brazilian proceedings. That is a real nuisance to the GDA Luma transaction. It is not ownership, and it does not restore control of the club.

Probability assessment

The following are the author’s calibrated judgements on the current record. They are analytical estimates, not predictions of any court’s reasoning.

Methodology note. These figures are derived from the documented procedural record, the applicable statutory framework and the observable commercial incentives of the parties. They are not derived from any model, and they are not a substitute for legal advice from Brazilian, English or Florida counsel.

What the court actually decided

The order was issued by the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Case No. 50-2026-CA-006258-XXXA-MB. This is a state trial court of general jurisdiction. It is not a federal court, not an appellate court, and not the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, where the separate Credivalores adversary proceeding touching GDA Luma is pending. Precision on this point matters, because the phrase “a US court has ruled” is doing a great deal of work in the current reporting and carries an implication of institutional finality that the record does not bear.
The action was commenced on 4 June 2026 and amended by an Amended Before Reply Complaint filed 12 June 2026 by McDonald Hopkins LLC on Textor’s behalf. It names three defendants: Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited, the English company in administration; João Paulo Magalhães Lins, president of the associative club Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas; and Carlos Augusto Montenegro, a former president of the associative club. It pleads declaratory relief that Textor owns the 90% SAF shareholding, declaratory relief that the November 2022 sale agreement is void, and further relief against the Brazilian co-defendants.

The procedural posture

This is a default judgment. Eagle Bidco’s deadline to respond expired on 6 August 2026. On 7 August 2026 Textor’s attorneys moved the Clerk of Court for entry of default. The matter was submitted to the Court on 15 September 2026 on a Verified Motion for Entry of Default Judgment as to Counts I and II. The Court granted the motion on the papers.

The operative declarations

The order, as published in Portuguese translation by Brazilian outlets on 17 September 2026, makes two declarations and one reservation. In substance:

1. The agreement dated 11 November 2022 for the sale and purchase of shares in the capital of S.A.F. Botafogo, between Textor and Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited, is declared void ab initio, on the basis that the consideration was not paid when due and cannot be paid, such that Completion as defined in the agreement did not occur and cannot occur.
2. Consequently, Textor is declared the owner of 90,000 Class B ordinary shares in S.A.F. Botafogo, representing 90% of the total and voting share capital.
3. Although all judicial activity in the matter is concluded as regards the defendant Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited, the Court retains jurisdiction over the proceeding as to the remaining relief sought in the Amended Before Reply Complaint.

Two points follow immediately. The judgment is final only as against Eagle Bidco; the action continues against Lins and Montenegro. And the declaration is framed as a nullity of contract, not as an order directed at any Brazilian register, any Brazilian company, or any third party in possession.

The reasoning

The stated ground is failure of consideration. That is a narrower and more fragile basis than it appears. Under the law of most common-law jurisdictions, including Florida, a failure or partial failure of consideration after formation generally renders a contract voidable and subject to rescission at the election of the innocent party, subject to defences of affirmation, laches, delay and inability to make restitutio in integrum. It does not ordinarily render the contract void ab initio as a matter of course. A finding that a contract is void from the outset is a strong remedy, and it is one that a defended action would have contested.
The choice-of-law question is more exposed still. The agreement is a share purchase agreement between a Florida-resident individual and a company incorporated in England and Wales, concerning shares in a Brazilian sociedade anónima do futebol. On any orthodox analysis the contract is likely to be governed by English law, and the proprietary consequences of any transfer are governed by Brazilian law as the lex situs of the shares. A Florida court applying Florida contract principles to a probably-English-law agreement, and drawing a proprietary conclusion about Brazilian registered shares, is precisely the configuration that a recognition court is required to scrutinise. Because the action was undefended, none of it was argued.

The back story

The Florida order is the latest move in a three-year unwinding of a multi-club structure that was over-levered from inception. The relevant chain runs: John Textor, through Eagle Football Holdings Limited, through Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited, to holdings in Olympique Lyonnais, Botafogo SAF, RWD Molenbeek and, until June 2025, Crystal Palace. The group financed itself through senior secured mezzanine notes arranged by Ares Management, against a planned New York listing that never happened.

Chronology

Read together, the sequence discloses a consistent structure. Textor is pursuing declaratory and injunctive relief in jurisdictions where the only named adversary is a company with no economic reason to fight, while the Brazilian forums, where the shares, the register, the company and the regulator all sit, have repeatedly ruled against him on contested applications. Every uncontested proceeding has gone his way. Every contested one, from the April arbitral removal to the 8 September refusal of interested-party status, has not.

Why Eagle Bidco did not defend

Textor’s public case leans heavily on Eagle Bidco’s silence. His own statement in August framed it directly: if Eagle Bidco continues to elect not to appear and not to defend or oppose his claims, then intermediate measures such as injunctions become less important, and it should only be a matter of time before his ownership claims prevail. The inference invited is that the administrators cannot answer the case. The more probable explanation is that they have no commercial reason to try.

The administrators’ duties and economics

Cork Gully LLP was appointed on 27 March 2026 following enforcement by Ares Management, whose claim against the Eagle Bidco estate is approximately US$547.4m. Administrators owe their duties to the creditors as a whole. Every pound spent defending a Florida declaratory action is a pound removed from the estate. The question they must answer is not “is Textor right?” but “what is this asset worth to creditors, and what does it cost to defend it?”
On the second question the answer has deteriorated sharply since the summer:

• The stake is no longer 90%. Since 7 July 2026 it is 49%, and therefore no longer a controlling interest.
• The underlying company is in recuperação judicial with approximately R$2.7bn of liabilities and negative net equity. A minority stake in an insolvent company is an asset of speculative value.
• The 9 September English order restrains Eagle Bidco from selling, transferring, devaluing or voting the shares pending the Brazilian proceedings. The administrators cannot realise the asset in any event.
• The 24 September capital increase, if approved and not matched, will reduce the holding to a fraction of one per cent. Eagle Bidco, restrained from voting and without free cash in the estate, is poorly placed to subscribe.
• Botafogo’s intercompany claim against Lyon, variously reported between R$745m and R$874m, and around €125m on a written-down basis, is itself largely unrecoverable following the €30m Lyon disposal.

Eagle Bidco entered administration on 27 March 2026. The Florida action was commenced on 4 June 2026. Under paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, no legal process may be instituted or continued against a company in administration or its property except with the consent of the administrator or the permission of the court. The English moratorium does not of its own force bind a foreign court, and the administrators’ consent may have been given or the point may simply never have been taken. But it is a live issue on any application to recognise the judgment, and it is one of several questions that a defended action would have ventilated and a default judgment does not resolve.

The 90% problem: what the order describes no longer exists

The most serious defect in the Florida order is not legal. It is factual, and it is visible on the face of the Brazilian record.
On 7 July 2026 Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas, the associative club, exercised a subscription bonus (bônus de subscrição) provided for in the shareholders’ agreement, on the stated basis that Eagle had failed to make a required capital contribution. Brazilian reporting puts the disputed contribution at approximately €21.2m, or R$126.9m, and records the associative club’s position that the money never became effectively available to the SAF. The mechanism was triggered and the capital structure changed: the associative club to 51%, Eagle Bidco to 49%.
The commercial purpose was explicit. Holding 51%, the associative club could transfer 41% to GDA Luma for a nominal consideration, retain 10%, and use the drag-along right to compel Eagle Bidco to sell its 49% on the same terms, producing GDA Luma at 90% and the associative club back at 10%, replicating the original structure with a new investor. That design was in place, and publicly described, two months before the Florida court declared Textor the owner of “90%”.
The order declares Textor owner of 90,000 Class B ordinary shares. That share count is consistent with the original structure of 100,000 shares, 90,000 held by Eagle Bidco and 10,000 by the associative club. Reconstructing the July issue on the reported 51/49 outcome gives an indicative post-bonus position as follows.

Data limitation. The post-July share count is not disclosed in any public filing available to this analysis. The figures in rows two and three are reconstructions derived from the reported 51/49 split and the unchanged 90,000-share holding, and are presented as orders of magnitude rather than register figures. The conclusion they support, that non-subscription at a 200,000,000-share issue eliminates a 90,000-share holding as a matter of arithmetic, does not depend on the precision of the reconstruction.

The 24 September extraordinary general meeting

The notice dated 16 September 2026 convenes shareholders of S.A.F. Botafogo for an exclusively digital extraordinary general meeting on 24 September 2026 at 11:00 Brasília time, on second call 29 September 2026, under Article 124, §2 and §2-A of Lei 6.404/76. The agenda is a capital increase of R$2,000,000 through the issue of 200,000,000 new registered Class B ordinary shares without par value at an issue price of R$0.01 each.
The mechanics are worth reading closely, because they are unusually consequential:

• Issue price basis. The price is set by reference to net asset value per share under Article 170, II of Lei 6.404/76, supported by an economic and financial valuation report made available to shareholders at the company’s registered office, satisfying Article 170, §7 and Article 289, I. With net equity negative, R$0.01 is effectively a nominal price, which is precisely why the dilution is so severe.
• Purpose. The notice states the contribution is indispensable to paying part of the company’s employee payroll, given an emergency cash-flow position aggravated by the recuperação judicial. This framing is deliberate: a capital increase to meet payroll in a judicial reorganisation is far harder to attack as an abusive dilution than one framed as a control transaction.
• Payment terms. Subscribed shares must be paid up in Brazilian currency within three business days of subscription.
• Pre-emption. Shareholders have a preference right over a 30-day forfeiture period from approval, under Article 171 and §1(b) and §4. Unsubscribed surplus may then be taken up by other shareholders who notify the company within five days of that period ending.

What the decision means in Brazil

Nothing, immediately. A foreign judgment has no effect in Brazil until it is homologated. The question is whether this one can be, and in what terms.
Article 105(I)(i) of the Federal Constitution confers on the Superior Tribunal de Justiça exclusive competence to homologate foreign judgments and to grant exequatur to letters rogatory. The procedure is governed by Articles 960 to 965 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles 216-A onwards of the STJ’s Internal Rules. Brazil applies a juízo de delibação, a moderated review. The STJ does not re-examine the merits of the foreign decision. It verifies compliance with defined formal and procedural requirements. Where those requirements are met, homologation is a bound act.
Article 963 sets out the indispensable requirements. Applied to this order:

Article 964 adds an absolute bar where the matter falls within the exclusive competence of the Brazilian judiciary under Article 23. As noted, share ownership is not on that list, and it would be wrong to assert that Article 964 disposes of the application. The obstacles here are the Article 963 requirements, not Article 964.

The arbitration obstacle

This is the most substantial barrier to recognition, and it is one Textor built into the structure himself.
On 22 May 2026, Minister Raul Araújo of the STJ held that disputes concerning the political rights of the shareholders of S.A.F. Botafogo must remain within the competence of the Câmara de Mediação e Arbitragem da Fundação Getulio Vargas, and removed the 2ª Vara Empresarial do Rio de Janeiro from direct interference in the company’s corporate questions. The ruling emphasised that arbitration enjoys plena competência to resolve corporate disputes where a valid arbitration clause binds the parties. It restored Eagle Bidco’s political rights in doing so, at that point a ruling in Textor’s interest.

The difficulty for Textor is structural. He cannot simultaneously rely on the arbitration clause when it displaces a hostile Rio commercial court and disregard it when it stands between him and a favourable Florida declaration. A respondent before the STJ, and Ares, the associative club and GDA Luma each have standing and motive to be that respondent, will argue that the very dispute the Florida court decided is a corporate dispute reserved to the CAM-FGV tribunal by agreement, as confirmed by the STJ’s own order. A foreign court ruling on a matter the parties agreed to arbitrate in Brazil, obtained by default, is a difficult candidate for homologation.

Brazilian company law: the register governs

Even assuming homologation, the order would have to be converted into a change in the Brazilian register. Brazilian company law does not make that automatic.
Article 31 of Lei 6.404/76 provides that ownership of registered shares is presumed by the inscription of the shareholder’s name in the Livro de Registro de Ações Nominativas, or by a statement from a custodian institution. Article 31, §1 provides that transfer is effected by a term drawn up in the Livro de Transferência de Ações Nominativas, dated and signed by transferor and transferee or their legitimate representatives. Article 31, §2 provides that transfer by judicial act or other title is effected only by annotation in the register on production of a competent document.
Brazilian jurisprudence is consistent on the consequence: the agreement between the parties is not sufficient to effect the transfer. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça has held that in a closely held company, transfer of registered non-book-entry shares occurs only by the term drawn up in the transfer book. Doctrine puts it plainly, until that annotation is made, the acquirer has not become a shareholder; and the same applies to transfers ordered judicially.

The binding effect problem

Counts I and II were determined against Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited alone. The following parties, each with a direct interest, were not before the court on those counts and are not bound by the declarations:

• S.A.F. Botafogo, the company whose share capital is the subject of the order, and which is in recuperação judicial.
• Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas, the associative club, which holds 51% and whose subscription bonus produced that position.
• Ares Management, the enforcing secured creditor of Eagle Bidco with a claim of approximately US$547.4m and security interests that Textor’s theory would undermine.
• Cork Gully LLP in its capacity as administrator, as distinct from the company itself.
• GDA Luma Capital Partners, the contracted purchaser under the 5 June 2026 binding agreement.
• The CAM-FGV arbitral tribunal, the 2ª Vara Empresarial, and the CBF as the registering body for club ownership.

Lins and Montenegro remain defendants in the Florida action, but the relief against them is reserved, not determined. A declaration obtained against an absent English company in administration is a weak instrument against this constellation of parties, all of whom are located in Brazil and none of whom submitted to Florida jurisdiction.

The English proceedings and what they do not decide

The English orders are frequently conflated with the Florida judgment in reporting. They are distinct, and their scope is narrow.

The 12 August interim injunction

On Wednesday 12 August 2026, HH Judge Mark Pelling KC, sitting in the Commercial Court, King’s Bench Division, granted Textor an interim injunction restraining the administrators of Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited from selling the company’s 90% shareholding in Botafogo SAF, until at least 9 September 2026. The judge held that following the administrators’ withdrawal of an undertaking not to sell, the position was materially different and there was now a risk the shares would be disposed of sooner rather than later. He expressly noted the difficulty created by Eagle Bidco’s non-participation, the court having to rely on Textor’s account that the shares remained unpaid.
This was an interlocutory order preserving the status quo. It was not a determination of title, and Textor’s own published statement conceded as much: the UK petition was not filed to ask the court to rule on the merits of declaratory or rescission relief, but to ask the court to respect the ongoing foreign proceedings.

The 9 September continuation

At the return hearing on Wednesday 9 September 2026 the court granted Textor’s application for summary judgment, Eagle’s representatives having communicated that they no longer intended to participate in the proceedings or in the injunction application and were adopting a neutral position. The order restrains Eagle Football Holdings Bidco from selling, transferring or devaluing the 90% Class B holding and from exercising voting rights attached to the shares, and requires preservation of all documents relating to the transfer, possession and use of those assets, whether located in England and Wales or elsewhere. It remains in force pending final determination of the Brazilian proceedings.

What happens next in the Brazilian courts

The homologation route, step by step

If Textor pursues recognition, and his counsel’s public framing suggests the order will initially be deployed as supporting material in existing Brazilian proceedings rather than as a standalone homologation application, the sequence is as follows.

On that timetable, a contested homologation resolved on the merits sits in late 2027 at the earliest, with execution beyond it. The 24 September capital increase, the recuperação judicial creditors’ meeting and the GDA Luma completion will all have resolved long before.

The recuperação judicial

The reorganisation proceeds at the 2ª Vara Empresarial do Rio de Janeiro before Judge Marcelo Mondego de Carvalho Lima. As at 11 September 2026, S.A.F. Botafogo had reached agreement with close to 50% of creditors, including MLS and Ludogorets; Nottingham Forest and Zenit remained unresolved. On 8 September the court refused Textor’s application to participate as an interested party, holding that his parallel corporate dispute did not of itself entitle him to access to the reorganisation file. The court thereby maintained a deliberate separation between the financial reorganisation of the SAF and the ownership litigation.
That separation is strategically significant. It means the reorganisation can be driven to a plan, and the company recapitalised, without Textor having a procedural seat at the table, and without the Florida order having any forum in which to operate.

The CAM-FGV arbitration

The arbitral tribunal remains the designated forum for corporate disputes, confirmed by the STJ in May 2026. It has already removed Textor from the administration of the SAF on a conservatory basis in April, restored Eagle Bidco’s political rights in May while declining to protect Textor’s personal position, and made findings adverse to the SAF’s own conduct. Any determination it makes on the validity of the 2022 transfer, the subscription bonus or the capital increase will carry the force of a Brazilian judgment under Article 31 of Lei 9.307/96, and will, if inconsistent with the Florida order, engage Article 963(IV) directly.

The immediate decision points

Implications

For the GDA Luma transaction

GDA Luma Capital Partners, led by Gabriel de Alba, signed a binding contract on 5 June 2026 at a reported US$130m gross, US$105m payable after the existing bridge loan. It has made emergency contributions to the SAF and participates in its management during the transition, but it holds no equity. The English injunction blocks the direct route, a transfer of Eagle Bidco’s registered shares, and the Florida order adds title risk to any such transfer.
The capital increase is the response. If GDA Luma or the associative club subscribes the new shares, control passes by subscription rather than by transfer, and the Eagle Bidco block becomes irrelevant by dilution rather than being bought. That route runs around both English orders and the Florida declaration, because none of them restrains the company from issuing new shares or the associative club from subscribing them. It is the reason the 24 September meeting matters more than the 15 September judgment.

For Ares and the Eagle Bidco estate

Ares is the party with most to lose from the Florida theory and least representation in the Florida proceedings. Its recovery on approximately US$547.4m already depends on impaired collateral: the Lyon disposal completed at US$30m, RWDM is of marginal value, and the Botafogo stake is now a diluting minority in a company in judicial reorganisation. A declaration that Eagle Bidco never owned the Botafogo shares would remove an asset from the security package altogether.
Expect Ares to appear, directly or through Cork Gully, at the point where the order is actually deployed, which is to say in Brazil, on any homologation application, rather than in Florida on an application to set aside. Florida procedure permits relief from a default judgment within one year on grounds including excusable neglect and lack of jurisdiction, so an application to vacate remains available; but contesting recognition where recognition is sought is the cheaper and more effective route.

For the wider market

The Textor position, assessed

Textor’s public statement following the order asserts that the corporate dispute with Eagle Bidco has come to an end, that he is again recognised as owner of 90% of SAF Botafogo, and that he expects the decision to be recognised and respected by the Brazilian government and by those involved with the club. His counsel, Felipe Bresciani de Abreu Sampaio, framed it more carefully, that the Florida decision expressly recognises Textor’s rights and reinforces the basis of the measures being pursued in Brazil, and will be used in the defence of those rights until they are fully recognised and secured in Brazil.
Counsel’s framing is the accurate one. The order is evidence to be deployed, not a title to be registered. The gap between the two characterisations is the gap between what the document says and what it can do.
Against that, three constraints on Textor should be stated directly. He carries an English judgment liability to Iconic Sports in excess of US$97m, which limits his capacity to fund a subscription or a buy-out. He was removed from the administration of the SAF by a Brazilian arbitral tribunal in April 2026, and the tribunal declined in May to restore his personal position even while restoring Eagle Bidco’s corporate rights. And the STJD has sought a six-year sporting ban arising from the Good Game match-fixing report, a matter separate from ownership but directly relevant to whether Brazilian football would accept his return to control.

Conclusion

The claim that a US court has ruled in favour of John Textor’s ownership of Botafogo is, on the narrowest reading, true. A Florida state trial court has declared the 2022 share purchase agreement void ab initio and declared Textor the owner of 90,000 Class B shares. But every qualifier that matters has been stripped away in transmission.
It is a state trial court, not a federal or appellate one. It is a default judgment against an insolvent English company that did not appear, in an action where no opposing evidence was heard on governing law, on the English administration moratorium, on Brazilian lex societatis, or on four years of conduct inconsistent with the pleaded case. It is a partial judgment with jurisdiction reserved. It binds no Brazilian party. It has no effect in Brazil until homologated by the STJ, a process measured in quarters, on requirements that the arbitration clause and the STJ’s own May 2026 ruling make genuinely difficult. And it declares ownership of a percentage that had already ceased to exist when the order was made.
Seven days after the order, the shareholders of S.A.F. Botafogo are asked to approve a capital increase that would reduce the disputed block to approximately four hundredths of one per cent. That is the correct frame for the whole matter. Ownership of Botafogo is not being decided in Palm Beach County. It is being decided in a digital extraordinary general meeting in Rio de Janeiro, in a reorganisation court on the same street, and in an arbitral tribunal at the Fundação Getulio Vargas, and on the record as it stands, none of those three is moving in Textor’s direction.

Caveats: Status of this document

This report is analytical. It is not legal advice, investment advice, or a substitute for advice from qualified Brazilian, English or Florida counsel. All litigation allegations described are unproven. No court has made any finding of liability against GDA Luma Capital Partners, Ares Management, Cork Gully LLP, the associative club or any individual named, save as expressly stated. References to the Credivalores adversary proceeding are to pending allegations only.
Sources available on request