This weekend, businessman Michael Clark will mark two months confined in the Capitán Yáber penitentiary annex, charged in the Sartor case. To his complex judicial situation, this Thursday a new setback was added for the controller of Azul Azul (concessionaire of Club Universidad de Chile) through Inversiones Antumalal Limitada. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold, with costs, the ruling issued in September 2025 by the Santiago Court of Appeals, which rejected the illegality claim filed by the former university president. With this legal action, Clark had sought to reverse a series of resolutions issued by the Financial Market Commission (CMF) between December 2024 and January 2025. The businessman's goal was to nullify the regulator's directive that questioned his conduct for failing to make a Public Tender Offer (OPA). This obligation would have arisen after his company acquired 90% of the shares in the Tactical Sport Private Investment Fund, a transaction that at the time gave him indirect control of the sports corporation. In its ruling, the Supreme Court recalled that the CMF "did not require (Clark) to make a public tender offer for having acquired shares in the Tactical Sport Fund, but rather for having acquired control of Azul Azul." The ruling held that the purchase of the Fund's shares was only the means by which the claimant indirectly acquired 63.07% of the series B shares of Azul Azul S.A. and, with it, its control. "It is that takeover of control, and not the transaction over the shares, that obligates him to make the offer," it noted. Along the same lines, it emphasized that both the Single Funds Law (No. 20,712) and the Securities Market Law (No. 18,045) establish regimes that "can be fulfilled simultaneously, so there is no antinomy as the claimant alleges." As proof of this, the ruling argued that it was the claimant himself who informed the CMF, on January 8 and 14, 2025, that a company under his control would launch a public tender offer for 100% of the series B shares of Azul Azul, "without this entailing publicly offering shares in the Tactical Sport Fund." "Accepting the appellant's thesis would imply that it is enough to interpose a private investment fund between the acquirer and the shares to remove the takeover of control from the public tender offer regime, depriving minority shareholders of the protection the legislator sought to guarantee them," the ruling stated. "There has been no illegal action on the part of the Financial Market Commission in requiring the claimant to adopt measures to comply with the provisions of articles 54 and 199 of Law No. 18,045," it concluded. The ruling bears the signatures of justices Adelita Ravanales, Jean Pierre Matus, and Gonzalo Ruz. Although they also participated in the decision, the member lawyers Raúl Fuentes and Carlos Urquieta were unable to sign because their electronic signature devices were unavailable. NEWSLETTER Pulso PM Monday to Friday, 12:30 PM The most relevant news on markets, companies and business: timely information, context and content for making better decisions. By subscribing you are accepting the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policies of La Tercera.