Public defenders, prosecutors, and Maceió residents allege in Brazilian and Dutch courts that Braskem’s rock salt mining caused subsidence that displaced about 60,000 people. The Rotterdam District Court found Braskem SA liable in July 2024, and an appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal of The Hague. In August 2026, the federal public defender sued for at least R$5B, as Braskem sought extrajudicial recovery on about $10.9B of debt.
Latest development Aug 27, 2026
On August 27, 2026, the Defensoria Pública da União (the federal public defender) sued Braskem and the federal government for at least R$5B (about $971M). The suit concerns 29.4 million tonnes of abandoned salt reserves and alleges that Braskem’s mining left about 52% of the reserves unusable. Braskem had filed for extrajudicial recovery of about $10.9B of debt on August 24, 2026.
Why it matters
The case tests whether a Brazilian parent company and its European subsidiaries can be held liable in Dutch courts for harm caused in Brazil. Braskem’s $10.9B debt restructuring will also show how mass tort claims rank against creditors.
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. 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 11 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 named defendant in criminal proceeding
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.
-
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 21 months
- Record confidence
- Low
The likeliest 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. Braskem’s own settlements and provisions for Maceió make reversal on the parent unlikely. Extending liability to financing subsidiaries is legally harder.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first judgment of the Court of Appeal of The Hague that decides liability in the Braskem appeals, whether final or interim, as shown in published rulings or party announcements. “Affirms parent, clears subsidiaries” if the court upholds Braskem SA’s liability but rejects liability for the European subsidiaries. “Parent and subsidiaries liable” if it upholds Braskem SA’s liability and extends it to one or more European subsidiaries. “Braskem SA liability overturned” if it sets aside the July 2024 liability finding against Braskem SA, whatever it decides on the subsidiaries. “Settlement” if the parties publicly announce a settlement or the appeals are withdrawn by agreement before any such judgment. “Still pending” if none of these has occurred by June 30, 2028. Procedural rulings, referrals, or evidentiary orders alone do not resolve the question.
Reasoning
Starting point. Dutch civil appeals of first-instance liability judgments in cross-border corporate tort cases, such as the Shell Nigeria litigation: Dutch courts of appeal fully reverse roughly 20% to 30% of first-instance civil judgments. Complex cross-border appeals often take two to four years to reach a liability ruling.
Dutch appellate courts overturn first-instance civil judgments in a minority of cases, roughly 20% to 30%, so the July 2024 finding against Braskem SA starts with a strong presumption. Brazilian environmental law, which the Dutch courts apply, generally imposes strict liability on the polluter. Braskem has also settled with Brazilian authorities and provisioned about R$18 billion, which undercuts any argument that it did not cause the harm. The claimants’ appeal against the European subsidiaries is weaker. Those entities ran financial and holding functions rather than the mine, and reaching them requires a more novel theory. Timing is the main uncertainty. The record shows no appellate hearing date, and complex Dutch appeals often take two to four years, so a meaningful pending share remains even with a horizon three years after the claimants’ appeal. Settlement is plausible because Braskem is restructuring about $10.9 billion of debt and may want to cap foreign exposure. Its cash constraints and preference to fight the precedent cut against a quick deal. The leading alternative to the main outcome is that the case is still pending on June 30, 2028.
Strict environmental liability under Brazilian law applied by Dutch courts · Braskem’s prior settlements and R$18 billion provision in Brazil · Novelty of extending liability to financing subsidiaries · No appellate hearing date on record · Extrajudicial recovery pressure on Braskem’s cash and settlement appetite
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 26, 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