On December 21, 2016, the SEC issued a litigation release regarding charges against Braskem, S.A., stating: "The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a Brazilian-based petrochemical manufacturer has agreed to settle charges that it created false books and records to conceal millions of dollars in illicit bribes paid to Brazilian government officials to win or retain business. In a global settlement with the SEC, U.S. Department of Justice, and authorities in Brazil and Switzerland, Braskem S.A. agreed to pay $957 million."

On December 21, 2016, the SEC issued a press release regarding charges against Braskem, S.A., stating: "The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a Brazilian-based petrochemical manufacturer whose stock trades in the U.S. markets has agreed to settle charges that it created false books and records to conceal millions of dollars in illicit bribes paid to Brazil government officials to win or retain business. In a global settlement with the SEC, U.S. Department of Justice, and authorities in Brazil and Switzerland, Braskem S.A. agreed to pay $957 million."

On December 21, 2016, the SEC filed a complaint against Braskem, S.A. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, stating: "This action arises from violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") by Braskem, S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company"), a Brazilian petrochemical company. Beginning in at least 2006 and through approximately 2014, Braskem paid bribes to foreign political parties and foreign officials in the government of Brazil in order to assist Braskem in obtaining or retaining business in that country. Braskem paid theses bribes through a complex web of international intermediaries and offshore bank accounts. Certain senior Braskem executives authorized and approved these payments while knowing that all or a portion of the funds would be passed onto foreign officials in the government of Brazil."

The Court stated: "Defendant [Braskem, S.A.] is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [...] Defendant is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [...] Defendant is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act "