BHP is trying to avoid responsibility for Brazil’s worst environmental disaster, lawyers representing thousands of victims told London’s High Court on Monday as the trial began in a claim worth up to 36 billion pounds ($47 billion).
More than 600,000 people, 46 local governments and around 2,000 companies are suing BHP for the collapse, in 2015, of the Mariana dam (MG), a structure that belonged and was operated by Samarco, a joint venture between BHP and OK.
The dam collapse triggered a wave of toxic mud that killed 19 people, left thousands homeless, flooded forests and polluted the entire length of the Doce River.
BHP, the world’s largest mining company by market value, is contesting its liability and says the case in London duplicates legal processes and remediation and repair programs in Brazil and should be rejected.
The company also states that almost US$8 billion has already been paid to those affected through the Renova Foundation, with around US$1.7 billion going to claimants involved in the English process.
The court case, one of the biggest in English legal history, entered a decisive stage on Monday, with the start of a 12-week trial to determine whether BHP is responsible.
The claimants’ lawyer, Alain Choo Choy, said in court documents made public on Monday that “there is a gulf between what BHP considers ‘acceptable’ and the compensation to which the claimants consider they are legally and morally entitled to receive.”
Choy argued that BHP’s actions in fighting the case and funding separate litigation in Brazil showed that the mining company was “cynically and doggedly trying to avoid” liability.
“While this is BHP’s choice, it cannot now claim to be a company that is ‘doing the right thing’ for victims of the disaster,” the defender added.
Independent operation
BHP argues it did not own or operate the dam, which contained mining waste known as tailings. The company said a Brazilian subsidiary of its Australian holding company was a 50% shareholder in Samarco, which operated independently.
The mining company also said it was not aware that the dam’s stability was compromised before the collapse.
Lawyers representing BHP said in the filing: “There is no law or contract that imposes any security duty on the ultimate parent company of a non-controlling shareholder and the other parent company of the same corporate group.
“Nor was there any breach of such security duty. Nor did BHP’s acts or omissions cause the collapse.”
BHP also said parts of the process were “implausible or exaggerated”.
Monday’s hearing follows developments in BHP’s negotiations with Brazilian authorities over the disaster. The Brazilian government is discussing a compensation agreement worth around R$30 billion with BHP, Vale and Samarco, the companies reported on Friday.
READ MORE: Brazil will be the third potash market in the world for BHP
Tom Goodhead, president of Pogust Goodhead, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, told reporters that victims of the disaster were not involved in the planned settlement.
“People just think it’s too little, too late,” he said outside the High Court. “They want to proceed with the trial and hold them accountable.”
BHP said in a statement that it is seeking to “finalize a fair and comprehensive compensation and rehabilitation process.”
The 12-week hearing will also consider whether Brazilian municipalities are allowed to take legal action, the impact of any agreements reached with BHP by claimants involved in the English case and whether complaints were brought too late.
Lt. Sam Tobin
