A Dutch foundation acting for Petrobras investors outside a $2.95B U.S. settlement sued Petrobras and group companies in Rotterdam over losses after the Lava Jato bribery scandal. On October 30, 2024, the District Court of Rotterdam rejected the shareholder claims under Brazilian and Argentine law but largely upheld bondholder claims under Luxembourg law. The foundation and Petrobras have both appealed to the Court of Appeal of The Hague.
Latest development Jun 30, 2026
On June 30, 2026, the Court of Appeal of The Hague declared the foundation inadmissible in its appeal against two Dutch Petrobras units, which the foundation had withdrawn. The units are Petrobras International Braspetro and Petrobras Global Finance. The appeal against Petrobras and the cross-appeals continue. A week earlier, the court refused to let two investors join the foundation’s side.
Why it matters
The appeal will decide whether investors outside the U.S. settlement can hold Petrobras liable for share price losses in a Dutch collective action. It will also decide whether the bondholder findings under Luxembourg law stand. The case also tests how far Petrobras’s bylaw arbitration clause keeps investors out of court.
Background
In 2014, the Brazilian criminal investigation known as Lava Jato revealed that contractors had overcharged Petrobras and paid kickbacks to senior Petrobras officials and politicians. Petrobras securities fell sharply between October 2014 and March 2015. Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation was set up in Amsterdam on November 12, 2015. It acts for investors not covered by a $2.95B settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It sued Petrobras, Dutch group companies, and former officers in the District Court of Rotterdam. The collective action follows the rules in force before the Dutch Act on Collective Damages Claims (WAMCA).
Petrobras relied on an arbitration clause in its bylaws. On September 19, 2018, the court held that the clause did not deprive it of jurisdiction over the shareholder claims. On May 26, 2021, it reversed part of a January 2020 ruling and included shareholders who traded on the São Paulo exchange. Those who had started arbitration or been held bound to arbitrate stayed out. On July 26, 2023, it held that Petrobras and Petrobras Global Finance (PGF) had acted unlawfully toward investors under several legal systems, and it sought expert advice on foreign law.
In its final judgment of October 30, 2024, the court held that under Brazilian law shareholders cannot recover share price losses from the company. It found it had not been shown that a large enough group of shareholders could do so under Argentine law. It largely upheld the claims against Petrobras and PGF for bondholders whose claims are governed by Luxembourg law, and claims against several officers who did not appear.
The foundation appealed on January 29, 2025, and Petrobras cross-appealed. On June 23, 2026, the Court of Appeal of The Hague refused to let two investors whose Brazilian arbitrations had failed join the foundation’s side. It held that they fall outside the foundation’s class. On June 30, 2026, it declared the foundation inadmissible in its appeal against Petrobras International Braspetro and PGF after the foundation withdrew it. The appeal against Petrobras continues.
Timeline 8 events
-
OrderFoundation’s appeal against two Petrobras units declared inadmissible
The foundation had withdrawn its appeal against Petrobras International Braspetro and PGF. The court ordered it to pay the costs of the incidental proceedings.
-
OrderCourt of Appeal refuses to let two investors join the foundation
The court held that Interfund SICAV and Fideuram Asset Management (Ireland) fall outside the foundation’s class because arbitrators had not declined jurisdiction over their claims.
-
AppealFoundation appeals to the Court of Appeal of The Hague
Petrobras later filed a cross-appeal.
-
JudgmentRotterdam court rejects shareholder claims but upholds bondholder claims
The final judgment rejected claims governed by Brazilian or Argentine law and largely upheld claims of bondholders governed by Luxembourg law against Petrobras and PGF.
-
JudgmentCourt finds Petrobras and PGF acted unlawfully toward investors
The court found inadequate action against fraud and incorrect information to investors, and sought expert advice on Brazilian, Argentine, and Luxembourg law.
-
JudgmentCourt brings São Paulo exchange shareholders into the class
Reversing part of a January 2020 ruling, the court included shareholders who traded on the São Paulo exchange, except those who had started arbitration or been held bound to arbitrate.
-
JudgmentRotterdam court rejects Petrobras’s arbitration clause defense
The court held that the bylaw arbitration clause did not deprive it of jurisdiction over the claims brought for shareholders.
-
OtherInvestors set up Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation
The Amsterdam foundation was formed to pursue claims of Petrobras investors outside the U.S. settlement.