NextFin News - A £36 billion judgment against BHP was meant to be a victory for more than 600,000 Brazilian dam-disaster victims. Eleven months on, it has become a three-way fight between the private-credit investors who bankrolled the case, the lawyers who brought it, and a rival claimant team — a battle over who controls the litigation and who gets paid first from the proceeds.
At the centre of the dispute sits a £42.7 million interim payment for costs that claimant firm Pogust Goodhead received into its client account. Brazilian financial services firm Vinci SPS Capital, one of the funds that financed the litigation, is suing Pogust Goodhead for more than £84 million, alleging the firm agreed to disburse litigation proceeds to barristers and after-the-event insurers without first obtaining lenders' required consent. Vinci says its rights take priority over any trusts in favour of those insurers.
The clash lays bare the hidden mechanics of modern mass-tort litigation. A £36 billion claim against one of the world's largest miners is no longer just a legal case. It is a financialised asset, funded by an opaque stack of private-credit capital with competing claims on the cash flows — and the victims named in the caption may not be first in line.
The £42.7 Million That Started a War
The Vinci dispute is precise, contractual, and bitter. According to the claim form filed with the High Court, Vinci provided 90.09 million Brazilian reais (about £12.8 million) for Pogust Goodhead's action against BHP. In return, the firm was required to transfer litigation proceeds into a designated receivables account. Vinci alleges Pogust Goodhead delayed opening that account for more than four and a half years and, when a £42.7 million interim payment for costs arrived, failed to move it.
Pogust Goodhead's defence rests on a chain of conditions: it says it cannot transfer the funds out of its client account until it issues an invoice to the claimants, and it cannot issue that invoice until it discharges a trust in favour of its after-the-event insurers. Vinci rejects that position outright, asserting its lenders' rights take priority over the insurers' trusts. The Brazilian company launched its action through Fieldfisher, seeking more than £84 million plus nearly £600,000 in legal costs. Pogust Goodhead has instructed DAC Beachcroft to defend it.
This is not a sideshow. It is a direct contest over the distribution of money that, in a functioning system, would flow toward compensation for the families of the 19 people killed when the Fundão tailings dam collapsed in November 2015, and the hundreds of thousands left without homes, water, or livelihoods along the Rio Doce. Every pound diverted into a priority dispute is a pound that does not reach a claimant — and every month of delay pushes compensation further into a damages phase now listed to begin in October 2026.
The timing matters. Liability was conclusively established on 14 November 2025, when Mrs Justice Finola O'Farrell held BHP strictly liable as a "polluter" under Brazilian environmental law and liable for fault under the Brazilian Civil Code. The Court of Appeal refused BHP permission to appeal in May 2026. With liability settled, the case moved to damages — the stage where the funders who carried the legal costs expect to be repaid, with returns. That is precisely when a capital stack's internal tensions surface.
Inside the Secret Capital Stack
Pogust Goodhead's main declared backer is Gramercy Funds Management, the US investment firm that agreed a $552.5 million secured-loan facility with the firm in October 2023 — the largest single litigation-finance deal ever arranged for a UK law firm. In June 2026, as the firm went through internal upheaval, Gramercy added a further facility of up to $150 million, with an initial tranche of $85 million, dedicated exclusively to the Mariana litigation. Under the terms of the agreement, visible in Companies House filings, Gramercy is free to intervene and exercise control over the business in the event of a default by the law firm.
But Gramercy is not alone. A High Court order compelled Pogust Goodhead to disclose the identities of all entities that had provided funding for the pursuit of the claim. Among the hitherto undisclosed investors are US funds Prisma Capital, Jive Capital and SPS Vinci; another US entity, Cliffwater, lent $14 million to Gramercy specifically to fund Pogust Goodhead. Most of the names on the disclosed list have not been made public.
This structure is the private-credit model applied to litigation: a lead funder raises money from other funds, on-lends it to a law firm against the expected proceeds of a case, and takes security over the receivables. The promise is that it unlocks justice for claimants who could not otherwise afford to sue a company with BHP's resources. The risk is that it inserts a layer of creditors whose contractual rights may outrank the claimants' compensation.
The financial pressure on Pogust Goodhead helps explain why the funders are circling. The firm's 2022 annual accounts posted losses of £290 million, and its auditors reported a "material uncertainty regarding an ongoing concern". Its co-founder and former chief executive, Thomas Goodhead, was removed and put on leave last year after clashing with Gramercy. In June 2026 the firm announced a strategic partnership with Quinn Emanuel, with London partner Justin Michaelson leading the next phase alongside Pogust, and secured the fresh Gramercy facility to carry the case through the damages stage.
"The support of Gramercy and our partnership with Quinn Emanuel ensure we have the resources, expertise and resolve to deliver the outcome our clients have waited for more than a decade to achieve," said Howard Morris, chairman of Pogust Goodhead. Michaelson said the firm was "proud to join them at this pivotal stage".
The support of Gramercy and our partnership with Quinn Emanuel ensure we have the resources, expertise and resolve to deliver the outcome our clients have waited for more than a decade to achieve.
The bill is enormous. Total legal costs in the case are estimated at around £350 million: BHP's own costs are forecast at £108 million, while Pogust Goodhead's fees are estimated at £250 million. In June, BHP applied to the court for legal-cost protection and, separately, attempted to settle for roughly $1.4 billion.
The September Tussle: Who Leads the Claimants
The funder-versus-lawyer dispute is only one front. In early September 2026, a client committee claiming to represent the "vast majority" of claimants said it had ended Pogust Goodhead's retainer in favour of a rival team — Bailey Glasser International, working with Hausfeld in London — arguing that key members of the original Pogust team are now based at the new firm. Pogust Goodhead responded with a strongly worded statement that the committee has no authority to terminate its representation on behalf of the wider group of claimants.
Anthony Maton, senior partner at Hausfeld, said his firm was "honoured" to act alongside Bailey Glasser in the case. "Our sole focus in the second stage of the litigation, following the very clear first liability judgment, is to help secure the very best deal for the victims," he said.
Together, the Vinci lawsuit and the retainer dispute amount to the same question asked from two directions: who controls a £36 billion claim once liability is won? The funders point to their security over the proceeds. The rival lawyers point to their mandate from the claimant committee. And Pogust Goodhead points to its status as the firm on record. The court will have to decide — and every day of uncertainty adds cost to a bill that is already estimated at £350 million.
A Structural Shift, Not a One-Off Dispute
It is tempting to read the Vinci-Pogust fight as a contained contractual quarrel. That would be a mistake. The BHP case is the leading edge of a structural change in how large-scale litigation is funded — and the clash reveals a fault line that will recur.
Third-party litigation funding has grown into a global asset class precisely because mass-tort and group-action claims are too expensive for claimants, and too risky for traditional lenders. The funder accepts the risk of total loss in exchange for a priority claim on any recovery. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, the dynamic was stark: sub-postmasters were awarded £58 million, of which litigation funders took £46 million, leaving claimants with £12 million — about £21,600 each. That ratio is the template private-credit investors are now underwriting at scale.
The BHP capital stack shows how far the model has evolved. It is no longer a single funder writing a cheque. It is a layered structure: Cliffwater lends to Gramercy, Gramercy lends to Pogust Goodhead, undisclosed co-investors sit alongside, and after-the-event insurers provide cover — each layer with its own security, consent rights, and priority claims. When a £42.7 million payment lands, the question is not "who needs it most" but "whose contract ranks first". That is a creditor's question, not a victim's question.
The UK Civil Justice Council has flagged exactly this problem. Its recent review concluded that parties in lawsuits must meet "capital adequacy requirements" and carry comprehensive insurance to protect against costs, warning that anonymous backers mean courts may struggle to enforce legal-cost orders, claimants may be unknowingly beholden to financiers, and cases may be covertly influenced by unaccountable investors.
The UK is moving towards an increasingly predatory claims culture. It is opaque where regulation has struggled to keep pace and is in favour of funders and lawyers.
Seema Kennedy, a former corporate lawyer and now head of Fair Civil Justice, framed the issue in those terms.
This is the structural call: the misalignment between funder returns and claimant compensation is not an accident of this case. It is baked into a funding model that treats litigation proceeds as an asset class. Unless priority rules and disclosure requirements are tightened, the BHP damages phase will not be the last time investors and lawyers clash over who eats first.
The Counter-Case: Without Funders, There Is No Case
The strongest argument for the current model is simple and powerful: without private-credit funding, there would be no viable route to hold BHP to account in England at all. The company argued throughout that the London action was unnecessary because it duplicated proceedings and compensation programmes in Brazil, where more than 610,000 people have already been compensated and around 240,000 UK claimants have provided releases for related claims. Brandon Craig, BHP's president of Minerals Americas, said nearly half of the claimants could be eliminated from the group because of settlement agreements signed in Brazil.
On this view, the funders are not predators but enablers. They absorbed the risk that the claim would fail entirely — a real risk, given that BHP fought jurisdiction for years and that the Brazilian reparations programme, worth 132 billion reais (about $23 billion) over 20 years, was already paying out. Without a funder willing to finance years of expensive cross-border litigation, most claimants would have had no practical remedy beyond the Brazilian scheme.
That argument holds as far as access goes. It does not answer the priority question. Enabling a case and ranking ahead of the people the case exists to compensate are different things. A system can preserve funders' right to be repaid — with a reasonable return for the risk taken — while still ensuring that victim compensation ranks ahead of funder profits and legal fees. The Vinci dispute exists because that ordering is unclear, and because the funders themselves are not transparent about their own investors.
The falsifying signal is concrete: if the High Court rules in Vinci's favour and, in doing so, establishes a clear, publicly reasoned priority framework that puts claimant compensation ahead of funder returns and insurer trusts, then the "structural misalignment" thesis weakens materially. Conversely, if the court resolves the £84 million claim on narrow contractual grounds without addressing priority or disclosure, the opacity will persist — and the next £36 billion case will produce the same fight.
What Happens Next, and Who Is Exposed
The immediate catalyst is the damages phase, listed to begin in October 2026 and run into 2027. Three things will determine how much of the £36 billion claim actually reaches claimants.
First, the size of the claimant pool. More than 160,000 claimants — about 20 per cent — have already dropped out by signing domestic settlements in Brazil, and BHP contends that up to 200,000 more could be removed because their claims were filed eight years after the disaster. Pogust Goodhead denies this and says the question will be determined by submissions. Every claimant removed reduces the headline exposure but also reduces the aggregate compensation pool.
Second, the 50-50 agreement. In July 2024, BHP, BHP Brasil and Vale agreed that BHP and Vale would each pay 50 per cent of any amounts payable to claimants in the UK group action and the separate Dutch group action. That caps BHP's direct exposure to the UK case at half the awarded sum — but Vale's participation does not reduce the total available to claimants; it only shares the burden between the two mining groups.
Third, and most uncertain, is the funder and fee waterfall. The £350 million in estimated legal costs, the £84 million Vinci claim, the Gramercy facilities, and the after-the-event insurer trusts all sit ahead of or alongside claimant payouts in the distribution chain. The Vinci litigation will be the first judicial test of where those claims rank.
For BHP, the financial exposure is partly provisioned but explicitly uncertain. The company has guided to expected cash outflows relating to Samarco of US$2.2 billion for FY2026 and US$0.5 billion for FY2027, with about US$1 billion spent to date in FY2026. But in its own disclosures the company warns that "there is a risk that outcomes may be materially higher or lower than amounts currently reflected in the provision". A £36 billion claim, even if ultimately settled for a fraction of that, dwarfs those provisions.
The time-horizon split is clear. In the short term, the Vinci-Pogust dispute and the rival claimant-firm leadership tussle will add delay and cost. In the medium term, the quantum trial will determine the actual damages number, which could be far below £36 billion. In the long term, the structural question is whether English courts and regulators force transparency and priority reform onto the litigation-funding market. That outcome will shape every mass-tort case that follows.
Base case: the court resolves the priority dispute on narrow grounds, the damages phase produces a settlement well below £36 billion, and claimants receive compensation after a further multi-year wait. Upside case: a clear priority ruling puts claimant compensation first, disclosure rules tighten, and the funding model is reformed. Downside case: the funder-versus-lawyer litigation drags on through the damages phase, costs compound, and the effective recovery per claimant is eroded by the capital stack sitting above them.
The central judgment: the BHP damages phase is no longer just a measure of corporate liability for an environmental disaster. It is a stress test of a financialised litigation model in which private-credit investors, not claimants, may hold the strongest contractual rights to the proceeds. The £42.7 million in that client account is the first real money on the table — and who takes it will tell investors, regulators, and victims' lawyers who this system actually serves.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
