Public defenders, prosecutors, and Maceió residents allege in Brazil and the Netherlands that Braskem’s salt mining caused subsidence that displaced about 60,000 people. The Rotterdam District Court held Braskem SA liable in July 2024, and the claimants’ appeal seeking to hold its European subsidiaries liable is pending. On August 28, 2026, a São Paulo court accepted Braskem’s extrajudicial recovery filing on about $10.9B of debt, suspending creditor enforcement for 120 days.
Latest development Aug 28, 2026
On August 28, 2026, a São Paulo court accepted Braskem’s request to open extrajudicial recovery proceedings to restructure about $10.9B of unsecured debt. The court suspended creditor enforcement actions for 120 days.
Why it matters
The Dutch appeal will decide whether European subsidiaries of a Brazilian group can be held liable in the Netherlands for harm caused in Brazil. The outcome matters to about 60,000 displaced residents and to Braskem, which is restructuring about $10.9B of debt.
Background
Braskem SA mined rock salt beneath five neighborhoods of Maceió, in the Brazilian state of Alagoas, from the 1970s until authorities forced it to stop in May 2019. Ground subsidence over abandoned mining cavities cracked streets and homes and eventually forced roughly 60,000 residents to relocate. Studies commissioned by the Alagoas state government later put total losses at R$20B to R$30B. Prosecutors and public defenders pursued Braskem through parallel civil and criminal tracks, and in October 2023, Brazilian police formally accused Braskem and 19 individuals. Braskem reached settlements with the Ministério Público and other authorities and says it has provisioned about R$18B for compensation and relocation.
Separately, Maceió residents sued Braskem SA and its Dutch subsidiaries in the Rotterdam District Court in the Netherlands. They argued that Braskem’s European entities, which run its financial and holding functions from Rotterdam, should also answer for the disaster. On September 21, 2022, the court rejected Braskem’s jurisdictional challenge and asserted jurisdiction over Braskem SA and its Dutch subsidiaries. It found that the Braskem group, and thus Braskem SA as its top holding company, had chosen to locate its financial decision-making entities and European headquarters in Rotterdam. That choice made it foreseeable that Braskem SA itself could be sued there.
In July 2024, the Rotterdam court held Braskem SA responsible for the disaster and ordered it to pay compensation to the claimants, in amounts yet to be determined. Braskem appealed that liability finding. On June 24, 2025, the claimants filed an appeal, now pending before the Court of Appeal of The Hague, seeking to hold Braskem’s European subsidiaries liable as well. In July 2025, the Alagoas state public defender filed a separate R$4B action over devalued homes near the evacuated neighborhoods. On November 10, 2025, Braskem settled the State of Alagoas’s claim for subsidence-related investment and tax losses, which had led to a 2023 summary judgment against Braskem.
In June 2026, Braskem was formally named a defendant in a federal criminal case alongside 13 individuals, including former directors and public servants. On August 24, 2026, Braskem asked a São Paulo court to open extrajudicial recovery proceedings to restructure about $10.9B of debt, citing petrochemical sector conditions and Maceió-related costs. On August 27, 2026, the Defensoria Pública da União (the federal public defender) sued Braskem and the federal government for at least R$5B over abandoned salt reserves. On August 28, 2026, the São Paulo court accepted the recovery filing and suspended creditor enforcement actions for 120 days. Also in August 2026, an Alagoas court split the state public defender’s R$4B action, which remains pending.
Timeline 12 events
-
OrderSão Paulo court accepts Braskem’s recovery filing
A São Paulo court accepted the processing of Braskem’s extrajudicial recovery request, suspending creditor enforcement actions for 120 days.
-
FilingFederal public defender sues Braskem over abandoned salt reserves
The Defensoria Pública da União sued Braskem and the federal government for at least R$5B, alleging Braskem’s mining left about 52% of salt reserves unusable.
Brazil's Federal Public Defender Sues Braskem Over Abandoned Maceió Salt Mines
-
FilingBraskem files for extrajudicial recovery on $10.9B debt
Braskem asked a São Paulo court to open extrajudicial recovery proceedings to restructure about $10.9B of unsecured debt, citing petrochemical sector conditions and Maceió-related costs.
Braskem entra com pedido de recuperação extrajudicial para renegociar dívidas
-
FilingBraskem becomes defendant in criminal case over subsidence
Braskem was formally named a defendant in a Brazilian criminal case over the Maceió ground subsidence, alongside 13 individuals including former directors and public servants.
-
SettlementBraskem settles Alagoas state indemnity claim
Braskem and the State of Alagoas signed a settlement that released the state’s claim for reimbursement of subsidence-related investment and tax losses. That claim had led to a 2023 summary judgment against Braskem.
BRASKEM SA - Form 20-F - FY2025BRASKEM SA - Form 6-K - FY2025 (3Q25)Braskem firma acordo de R$ 1,2 bi com o Estado de AlagoasBraskem fecha acordo de R$ 1,2 bilhão por desmoronamentos em MaceióBraskem é condenada a indenizar Alagoas por afundamento de Maceió
-
FilingAlagoas public defender files R$4B action over devalued homes
The Alagoas state public defender’s office filed a separate action seeking about R$4B for the devaluation of homes near the evacuated neighborhoods.
Brazil's Federal Public Defender Sues Braskem Over Abandoned Maceió Salt Mines
-
AppealClaimants appeal to reach Braskem’s Dutch subsidiaries
Victims filed an appeal in the Netherlands seeking to hold Braskem’s European subsidiaries, not just Braskem SA, liable for the disaster.
Brazilian Victims Sue Braskem's Dutch Subsidiaries Over Salt Mine Collapse
-
JudgmentRotterdam court finds Braskem SA liable
The Rotterdam District Court ruled that Braskem SA caused the Maceió subsidence and ordered compensation to claimants, with the amount left to later proceedings.
After Braskem SA found liable for disaster in Maceió, Brazilian victims appeal to Dutch court against European subsidiariesLegal Reckoning: Dutch Court Holds Braskem Accountable for Maceió Subsidence
-
FilingBrazilian police formally accuse Braskem and 19 individuals
The accusations concerned the Maceió salt-mine subsidence.
-
OrderRotterdam court asserts jurisdiction over Braskem SA
The Rotterdam District Court ruled it had jurisdiction over both Braskem’s Dutch subsidiaries and Braskem SA as the group’s Brazilian parent, rejecting Braskem’s jurisdictional challenge.
Brazilian claimants alleging environmental harm against salt mine operator successfully establish jurisdiction in the NetherlandsMaceió victims v Braskem. Rotterdam court refuses application for Article 34 lis pendens stay.
-
HearingRotterdam court hears Maceió residents on jurisdiction
The court heard residents of the affected neighborhoods on whether Braskem SA and its Dutch subsidiaries could be sued in the Netherlands.
-
OtherBraskem halts salt mining after subsidence confirmed
Braskem stopped rock salt extraction in Maceió after ground subsidence linked to its mines forced the evacuation of thousands of families from five neighborhoods.
Brazil's Federal Public Defender Sues Braskem Over Abandoned Maceió Salt Mines
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the Court of Appeal of The Hague resolve the appeals over Braskem’s liability for the Maceió subsidence by June 30, 2028?
- Affirms parent, clears subsidiaries32%
- Still pending on June 30, 202826%
- Braskem settles with Dutch claimants16%
- Parent and subsidiaries liable15%
- Braskem SA liability overturned11%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2028in 20 months
- Record confidence
- Low
The most likely result, at 32%, is that the Court of Appeal of The Hague upholds Braskem SA’s liability but declines to extend it to the European subsidiaries by June 30, 2028. The parent’s liability rests on Brazilian-law findings that the record does not show to be weakened, while subsidiary liability needs a harder showing of involvement in the mining.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first final appellate judgment of the Court of Appeal of The Hague on Braskem’s appeal of the July 2024 liability ruling and the claimants’ June 24, 2025, appeal against the European subsidiaries. A later damages phase is excluded. Classification uses published judgments or party statements. A settlement counts only if it is publicly announced as resolving the Dutch claims before judgment. If neither occurs by June 30, 2028, the question resolves as still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. Dutch appellate review of first-instance civil liability judgments in foreign-harm parent and subsidiary tort cases: Dutch courts of appeal uphold most first-instance civil judgments in substance, roughly 60% to 70%. Extending liability to group entities that did not operate the harmful activity succeeds less often.
Dutch appellate courts affirm most first-instance civil judgments, and the July 2024 Rotterdam liability finding against the operator’s parent is the strongest part of the claimants’ position. Extending liability to financing and holding subsidiaries in Rotterdam requires proof that they contributed to the harm under Brazilian law. That is a higher bar, so full claimant success sits at 15%. Reversal of Braskem SA’s liability is a long shot at 11% given Braskem’s settlements and provisions in Brazil. Settlement at 16% reflects Braskem’s August 2026 extrajudicial recovery and its pattern of settling Maceió claims. Restructuring pressure cuts both ways, since cash constraints may also slow talks. The record gives no hearing date, and Dutch appeals often run two to three years, so a still-pending result at 26% is the main alternative. Nothing in the record has changed since the September 26, 2026, forecast, so all numbers are unchanged.
Strength of the 2024 Rotterdam liability finding against Braskem SA · Higher bar to hold financing subsidiaries liable · No appellate hearing date in the record · Braskem’s extrajudicial recovery and settlement pattern · Typical two-to-three-year Dutch appellate timelines
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 6, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made