Why is BHP contesting liability for the 2015 dam disaster?

Question

Accepted Answer

BHP Contests Liability for 2015 Mariana Dam Disaster Citing Duplication and Existing Reparation Programs

BHP is contesting its liability for the 2015 Mariana dam collapse by arguing that the London lawsuit duplicates existing legal proceedings and reparation and repair programs in Brazil. The company asserts that nearly US$8 billion has already been disbursed to affected parties through the Renova Foundation, with approximately US$1.7 billion allocated to claimants involved in the current English case. BHP maintains it did not own or operate the dam, as a Brazilian subsidiary of its Australian holding company held a 50 percent stake in Samarco, which operated independently.
Allegations of Duplication and Existing Compensation

The mining giant contends that the London proceedings are redundant given the extensive efforts already undertaken in Brazil. BHP highlights the significant financial commitments made through the Renova Foundation, which was established to manage compensation and environmental rehabilitation efforts following the disaster. The US$8 billion already paid signifies a substantial investment aimed at addressing the widespread damage and loss caused by the dam's collapse.
Corporate Structure and Operational Independence

BHP's defence hinges on its corporate structure, asserting that it was not directly involved in the ownership or operation of the Mariana dam. The company states that its subsidiary's 50 percent shareholding in Samarco, the entity that operated the dam, does not equate to direct control or operational responsibility. Lawyers for BHP argue that there is no legal basis or contractual obligation for an ultimate parent company of a non-controlling shareholder to bear safety duties.
Lack of Knowledge Regarding Dam Stability

Furthermore, BHP claims it possessed no prior knowledge of the compromised stability of the dam before its catastrophic failure. This assertion aims to dissociate the company from any foreknowledge of the risks that led to the collapse. The company's legal team contends that neither BHP's actions nor its omissions were the cause of the disaster.
Claims of Implausibility and Exaggeration

BHP also suggests that certain aspects of the lawsuit are implausible or exaggerated. This stance indicates a belief that the claims presented by the plaintiffs may overstate the extent of damages or BHP's causal role in the disaster. The company's legal strategy appears focused on demonstrating that the claims do not meet the necessary legal thresholds for liability.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why is BHP contesting liability for the 2015 dam disaster?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends