The law firm leading one of the UK’s largest-ever class actions is facing a destabilizing internal revolt that could ripple through a landmark case. Pogust Goodhead—fronting a £36 billion claim against BHP tied to the 2015 Samarco dam disaster—has seen senior lawyers depart and staff raise concerns over governance and independence as tensions mount with its principal backer, Gramercy Funds Management.

An article in Financial Times reports that the flashpoint follows the abrupt replacement of co-founder Tom Goodhead as CEO and a subsequent $65 million credit top-up from Gramercy, on top of an earlier substantial funding package. According to the FT, at least two senior partners—previously central to marquee matters, including BHP and Dieselgate—have stepped down, while a staff group has challenged transparency around funder involvement. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is said to be monitoring events as BHP’s counsel queries whether the firm can stay the course. Pogust’s chair rejects any suggestion of external control, insisting the firm remains independently managed and committed to clients.

For litigation finance observers, the story lands at the intersection of capital intensity, governance, and case continuity. Large, multi-year collective actions carry heavy, lumpy spend profiles and complex funder covenants; when leadership flux and fresh capital coincide mid-stream, questions naturally arise about strategic autonomy, settlement posture, and reputational risk.

If the rift deepens, the implications extend beyond a single case: market confidence in high-leverage portfolio strategies could be tested, and counterparties may push harder on disclosure or consent terms. The episode will likely fuel ongoing debates over funder influence and the safeguards needed when billions—and access to justice—are on the line.

Fresh on the heels of Siltstone's announcement of a trade secrets lawsuit against former GC Mani Walia, another funder-versus-insider fight has broken out - this time in Nevada federal court, where Archetype Capital Partners alleges that its former co-founder orchestrated a “lift-out” of confidential risk models and deal intelligence to seed a rival venture.

Reuters reports that the $100 million complaint names Andrew Schneider and Georgia-based Bullock Legal Group, claiming they misappropriated Archetype’s proprietary underwriting, pipelines and client data tied to the firm’s mass-tort thesis—including lawsuits targeting alleged videogame-addiction harms. The suit also points to nondisclosure and confidentiality obligations Archetype says were ignored, with knock-on damages measured in lost opportunities and diverted investors.

Defendants have not yet responded publicly. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (No. 2:25-cv-01686), the case frames a familiar narrative as litigation finance matures: the more funders professionalize and productize origination and risk analytics, the more those intangible assets look like trade secrets worth fighting over. Archetype says its internal marketing strategies, investment criteria and pricing models were lifted to help secure outside capital and counterparties for a competing platform.

Expect more of this as fundraising cycles lengthen and origination competition intensifies. Litigation finance is inheriting private-equity-style playbooks on noncompetes, clawbacks and trade-secret enforcement. The sector could soon see a wave of policy upgrades—employee handbooks, offboarding policies, and standardized NDAs—that add friction in the near term but reduce leakage risk and protect valuation over time.