BHP faces $47 billion UK lawsuit over Brazilian dam collapse
Tailings dam collapsed in November 2015
Killed 19 people and left hundreds homeless
BHP contests liability in London case
High Court hearing to last up to 12 weeks
By Sam Tobin
LONDON, Oct 21 (Reuters) -A hearing in a lawsuit against BHP BHP.AX over Brazil's worst environmental disaster, the 2015 collapse of the Mariana dam, will begin at London's High Court on Monday, with claimants seeking up to 36 billion pounds ($47 billion) in damages.
More than 600,000 Brazilians, 46 local governments, and around 2,000 businesses are suing BHP over the collapse of the dam in southeastern Brazil, which was owned and operated by BHP and Vale's VALE3.SA Samarco joint venture.
The collapse of the dam, which held mining waste known as tailings, unleashed a toxic wave that killed 19 people, left thousands homeless, flooded forests, and polluted the length of the Doce River – which is considered to be sacred by the Krenak indigenous tribe.
BHP, the world's biggest miner by market value, is contesting liability and says the London lawsuit, one of the largest in English legal history, duplicates legal proceedings and reparation and repair programmes in Brazil.
It says nearly $8 billion has already been paid to those affected by the disaster through the Renova Foundation, which was established in 2016.
The Brazilian government is discussing a nearly $30 billion compensation deal with BHP, Vale and Samarco, the miners said on Friday.
Pogust Goodhead, the law firm representing the claimants, said in a statement the English lawsuit is "the only way to truly hold BHP accountable".
"The English claim has pushed BHP into finally accepting they needed to do more in Brazil but this proposed deal only goes half way at best," Pogust Goodhead CEO Tom Goodhead said.
BHP said in a statement that it is "working collectively with the Brazilian authorities and others to seek solutions to finalise a fair and comprehensive compensation and rehabilitation process".
The London High Court hearing will last up to 12 weeks and will consider whether BHP is liable to the claimants under Brazilian environmental law.
It will also consider whether the Brazilian municipalities involved in the case are permitted to bring legal action and the impact of any agreements reached with BHP by claimants involved in the English lawsuit.
The suit has had a convoluted path towards trial: it was thrown out in 2020 before the Court of Appeal ruled it could proceed.
BHP and Vale also briefly fought in the English courts over their potential liability, before reaching an agreement in July to split the bill for any damages that may be awarded.
Reporting by Sam Tobin
Editing by Mark Potter and Barbara Lewis
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
