Gramercy dispute over £36bn BHP-Vale dam claim
Gramercy urged Pogust Goodhead to consider a £1.4bn offer in a £36bn Fundão dam claim, prompting a fight over settlement strategy, legal control and the firm’s CEO removal.
Gramercy, which has provided more than $700m in funding to Pogust Goodhead across its cases, pressed the litigation firm in June 2025 to consider an approximately £1.4bn offer from BHP and Vale in a £36bn claim related to the 2015 Fundão dam collapse. Roughly two months after that exchange, Tom Goodhead was removed as chief executive; Gramercy described the removal as “for cause” over financial allegations, a claim Goodhead denies.
More than 420,000 Brazilian claimants pursue the London-based action over the Mariana disaster in Minas Gerais, which killed 19 people and caused extensive environmental damage. Correspondence and a June conversation show Gramercy’s managing partner warned the funder could not continue committing capital indefinitely if what it viewed as a reasonable settlement was rejected.
A committee representing a majority of the claimants has raised concerns about Pogust Goodhead’s conduct since Goodhead’s departure and instructed Bailey Glasser International to manage the litigation, with UK firm Hausfeld also involved. NorthWall Capital, a litigation funder that previously co-invested with Gramercy, is understood to be financing the new legal team.
Gramercy has accused Goodhead of seeking to position himself to profit from the case and criticised NorthWall’s involvement. NorthWall rejected that allegation and argued choices over legal representation should rest with claimants and their counsel. Pogust Goodhead has questioned the claimant committee’s authority to remove the firm and warned that transferring the litigation could affect existing funding agreements, insurance arrangements and the timetable for the claim.
Both sides have taken aspects of the dispute to the High Court in London. The proceedings raise contractual and procedural questions about how third-party capital is managed in large cross-border claims.
Goodhead has denied breaching his duties, stating his expenditures while running the firm were disclosed and appropriate for a founder-led business handling multi-billion-dollar claims.








