Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial People Moves

Global Law Firm announce expansion and name change

August 8, 2022

Global Law Firm announce expansion and name change

Global law firm PGMBM will now be known as Pogust Goodhead after a succession of litigation victories.

Following a landmark ruling ensuring mining giant BHP will face their day of reckoning in the English courts over the Mariana dam disaster, the law firm will also be expanding their services in Brazil.

With the addition of a new office in Rio de Janeiro, Pogust Goodhead plans to continue spearheading environmental litigation in Brazil, as well as around the world through offices in the Netherlands and United States.

The expansion also includes plans for a new legal process outsourcing centre based in Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil to help process and service clients worldwide – which will bring over 300 jobs to the area.

Alongside the expansion into Brazil, the firm is growing its global securities department, with a new office in San Diego – headed up by experienced securities litigator Takeo Kellar. Enhancing this practise area aligns with Pogust Goodhead’s commitment to bringing shareholder engagement and litigation solutions to investors around the world.

The news comes after a series of historic settlements including on behalf of 15,000 claimants in the Volkswagen Group Litigation in May 2022 and 16,000 victims of the British Airways Data Breach in 2021.

A partnership and £100m funding deal with North Wall Capital was also recently announced as the largest investment in a UK claimant law firm to date.

The ongoing investment in Brazil will also see the addition of 20 new Brazilian lawyers in the coming weeks, after a series of UK hires.

Pogust Goodhead has recently seen the recruitment of C-Suite leaders Chief Operating Officer Alicia Alinia and Chief Financial Officer Jash Radia, bringing decades of experience in strategic leadership across the business.

Global Managing Partner and CEO Tom Goodhead said:

“In the past twelve months, we have successfully concluded group litigations against British Airways, Volkswagen and just last month we secured an extraordinary victory against the largest mining company in the world, BHP.

“Today we are moving to the next chapter. As the business continues to grow, it is vital that we make changes to ensure that we have a strong, reliable, and sustainable infrastructure to facilitate our ambitions to transform group litigation globally.

“Our Brazilian cases have always been the driving force of the firm and with a new office in Rio we hope to build on the great progress we have made with cases against defendants such as BHP and Tuv Sud.

“Most importantly we want to ensure our clients are given an even better experience and to ultimately ensure we represent their desire for justice, continuing to fight the good fight across all our litigations.”

Chairman Harris Pogust added:

“We are delighted to be building on the successes of recent years in what we feel is the next crucial step for our firm.  I am beyond proud to have my name standing big and bold next to my amazing partner, Tom Goodhead.  As we continue to grow the firm, brand recognition becomes an even more important item in our growth.  With this name change we believe the brand Pogust Goodhead will be one of the most recognizable in the legal landscape.

“There is no law firm out there doing the cutting edge, ground-breaking work on behalf of those who are in most need of legal representation than Pogust Goodhead, and these changes will ensure we take things to the next level.

“We are beyond proud of the talented people we have on board at the firm and the incredible work they do every day, championing justice for our clients.

“We are only just getting started.”

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.