By Sam Tobin
LONDON (Reuters) -BHP is cynically trying to avoid responsibility for Brazil’s worst environmental disaster, lawyers representing thousands of victims told London’s High Court on Monday, as a trial worth up to 36 billion pounds ($47 billion) began.
More than 600,000 Brazilians, 46 local governments and about 2,000 companies have sued BHP over the collapse of the Mariana Dam in southeastern Brazil, which was owned and operated by BHP and Vale’s Samarco joint venture.
The dam collapse released a wave of toxic sludge that killed nineteen people, left thousands homeless, flooded forests and polluted the entire length of the Doce River.
BHP, the world’s largest miner by market value, disputes liability, saying the London lawsuit copies legal proceedings and recovery and repair programs in Brazil and should be dismissed.
It also says that almost $8 billion has already been paid to those affected through the Renova Foundation, of which about $1.7 billion will go to the plaintiffs involved in the English case.
The lawsuit, one of the largest in English legal history, entered a decisive phase on Monday with the start of a 12-week trial to determine whether BHP is liable.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Alain Choo Choy, said in court filings made public Monday that “there is a gap between what BHP considers ‘acceptable’ and the damages to which the plaintiffs believe they are legally and morally entitled.”
He argued that BHP’s actions in fighting the case and funding separate lawsuits in Brazil showed the miner was “cynically and persistently trying” to avoid responsibility.
“While that is BHP’s choice, it cannot now rightly claim that it is a company ‘doing the right thing’ by the victims of the disaster,” Choo Choy added.
‘EXCESSED’
BHP claims it did not own or operate the dam, which contained mining waste known as tailings. It said a Brazilian subsidiary of the Australian holding company was a 50% shareholder in Samarco, which operated independently.
The miner also said he was unaware the dam’s stability had been compromised before it collapsed.
Lawyers representing the miner said in court filings: “There is no law or contract that imposes any security duty on the ultimate parent of a non-controlling shareholder and on the other parent in the same corporate group.
“There was also no breach of any such safety duty. Nor did BHP’s actions or omissions lead to the collapse.”
BHP also said parts of the lawsuit were “implausible or exaggerated”.
Monday’s hearing follows developments in BHP’s negotiations with Brazilian authorities over the disaster. Brazil’s government is discussing a nearly $30 billion compensation deal with BHP, Vale and Samarco, they said Friday.
Tom Goodhead, CEO of Pogust Goodhead, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, told reporters that the disaster victims were not involved in the planned deal.
“People just think it’s too little too late,” he said outside the Supreme Court. “They want to continue the process and hold them accountable.”
BHP said in a statement that it is seeking to “complete a fair and comprehensive compensation and rehabilitation process.”
The 12-week hearing will also look at whether Brazilian municipalities can take legal action, the impact of any agreements made with BHP by claimants involved in the English lawsuit and whether the claims were filed too late.
(Reporting by Sam Tobin, Editing by Mark Potter and Barbara Lewis)
