BHP dam claim funding dispute intensifies before 2027 UK trial

Traders Union
All News
Financial News
BHP dam funding dispute

Highlights

U.S. hedge fund Gramercy backed Tom Goodhead's removal as Pogust Goodhead CEO after he rejected a $1.4bn BHP-Vale settlement offer on a £36bn claim.
A claimant committee has shifted case management from Pogust Goodhead to Bailey Glasser International and Hausfeld, raising concerns about funder influence and has warned Pogust Goodhead of possible dismissal.
Over two dozen Pogust Goodhead lawyers have resigned amid regulatory scrutiny and a UK High Court dispute on case representation, with a trial set for April 2027.

Settlement pressure and leadership fallout

As reported by Financial Times, the U.S. hedge fund Gramercy, which bankrolls the claim against BHP and Vale, warned lawyer Tom Goodhead to settle the case weeks before supporting his removal as chief executive of Pogust Goodhead.

Goodhead says Gramercy pressed him to accept an offer of about $1.4bn from BHP and Vale, which he considered too low for a case seeking £36bn in damages. In a June 2025 phone call cited in a letter seen by the FT, Gramercy managing partner Robert Koenigsberger told Goodhead he would not “play litigation roulette” and said that if the case did not settle, the law firm could end up with nothing.

Two months after that conversation, Goodhead was ousted as CEO in a move backed by Gramercy. Goodhead tells the FT there is no coincidence in his removal after he refused what he describes as a vastly undervalued settlement, while Gramercy says he was removed for cause over disputed financial allegations.

Claimant control and regulatory implications

A client committee representing most claimants in the Mariana disaster says Pogust Goodhead has been under Gramercy’s control and not acting in clients’ best interests since Goodhead’s removal. The committee has warned the firm it could be dismissed if it does not address a series of concerns, and it has recently instructed Bailey Glasser International to manage the case, with Hausfeld also acting on the lawsuit.

NorthWall Capital, which invested alongside Gramercy in the case, is also providing financing for the rival legal team, according to people familiar with the matter. Gramercy says Goodhead is trying to profit from the litigation and accuses him and NorthWall of doing victims a disservice, while NorthWall rejects that claim as false and says decisions on legal representation belong to claimants and their legal advisers.

Pogust argues the committee does not have the power to remove it and says changing firms could harm claimants. Both Pogust and the committee have filed claims in London’s High Court to resolve the issue.

The dispute is drawing wider attention because more than two dozen lawyers have resigned from Pogust Goodhead over the past year, including some citing concerns about Gramercy’s influence. The Solicitors Regulation Authority says it is closely monitoring the situation, as English and Welsh rules require lawyers, not funders, to control cases in clients’ best interests.

The representation fight unfolds as the case is set to go to trial in April 2027. An English court rules in November that BHP and Vale are liable for damages, with the next stage due to determine how much the miners must pay.

Our earlier report on the UK’s planned flexible working reforms explained that employers would face a tougher process before rejecting requests to work from home or adjust hours, including a requirement to meet staff face to face and give clear reasons. The piece also outlined mixed reactions, with unions backing the added scrutiny while some business leaders warned the rules could reshape hiring decisions and encourage shifting fully remote roles abroad.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.