The ongoing class action lawsuit against BHP over the catastrophic Samarco dam collapse has faced a significant setback. Four Brazilian municipalities have withdrawn from the legal proceedings.

These municipalities—Sobralia, Corrego Novo, São Mateus, and Conceição da Barra—had previously joined the group action seeking 18 billion pounds in compensation for the destruction caused by the 2015 disaster. Their recent exit leaves the remaining claimants to pursue justice through British courts, despite a massive compensation deal already struck between BHP, Samarco, and the Brazilian government.

In November 2015, the Fundão Dam, part of the Samarco mining operation jointly owned by BHP and Vale, collapsed in Brazil’s state of Minas Gerais. The failure resulted in a devastating mudslide that killed 19 people, displaced thousands, and destroyed entire towns and critical infrastructure.

The environmental damage caused by the disaster remains one of the most severe in Brazilian history, affecting both local communities and ecosystems. The fallout from the tragedy has led to a complex legal battle involving various stakeholders, including local communities, businesses, and government authorities.

In the aftermath of the disaster, BHP and Vale reached a settlement agreement with the Brazilian government in 2023. The 31.7 billion U.S. dollar deal aims to compensate victims and fund long-term recovery efforts, marking a significant attempt to address the damages caused by the collapse. Under this agreement, the companies would contribute a significant portion of the compensation, while Samarco, the joint venture operating the mine, would also provide a share through its operational revenue.

However, the settlement does not please all affected parties. The class action in the UK, led by the law firm Pogust Goodhead, is still very much alive. Pogust Goodhead’s global managing partner, Tom Goodhead, has dismissed the notion that the withdrawal of the four municipalities signals a weakening of the group action. He emphasized that each municipality should make its own decision on how best to proceed. “The vast majority of municipalities have communicated to us that they wish to continue the litigation in England to seek the full damages that they believe are owed to them,” said Goodhead. “For many, the trial in London remains the only viable route to receive full compensation for the disaster.”

Goodhead noted that many affected municipalities in Brazil are skeptical about the compensation scheme agreed upon by the Brazilian government and the mining companies. “A large number of our clients have expressed extreme skepticism about this supposed solution,” he stated, suggesting that many Brazilian citizens and local governments do not fully trust the settlement’s implementation.

For its part, BHP remains optimistic that most affected communities will eventually embrace the Brazilian settlement. The company’s local president, Emir Calluf, expressed confidence in the settlement process. He stated there had been progress in implementing the agreement, with compensation arrangements already underway. “We are seeing good progress and anticipate that the compensation process will accelerate in the coming weeks and months,” Calluf said.

BHP has characterized the Brazilian compensation settlement as the most expedient and efficient means of delivering closure to the individuals impacted by the disaster. The company argues that the settlement will offer quicker relief than the protracted and complex litigation in the UK courts. “The settlement agreement in Brazil is the fastest and most efficient avenue to provide compensation and closure for those impacted by the Mariana dam collapse,” Calluf asserted.

As the legal battles continue, the situation remains fluid. The Brazilian municipalities’ decision to withdraw from the UK lawsuit reflects the growing divide between those who support the Brazilian government’s compensation scheme and those who feel the need to pursue legal action in the English courts. While the settlement may provide an expedited path to compensation, many still view the British class action as the only means of achieving full justice.

In the coming months, the fate of the Samarco litigation will depend on how affected communities and legal experts weigh the pros and cons of the Brazilian settlement versus the UK class action. With both legal routes still very much in play, the ongoing fight for justice continues to shape the legacy of the Samarco dam disaster and its far-reaching consequences.