Trending Now
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.”

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial

APCIA Urges House to Pass Litigation Funding Disclosure Reforms

By John Freund |

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is renewing its call for Congress to advance two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF). According to a recent article in Insurance Journal, APCIA is backing the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 (H.R. 1109) and the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025 (H.R. 2675) as key reforms for federal civil litigation.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up both bills, which would require disclosure of TPLF in federal cases, and in the case of H.R. 2675, bar foreign governments and sovereign-wealth funds from investing in U.S. litigation. APCIA’s senior vice president for federal government relations described the measures as bringing “needed transparency for one of the largest cost drivers of insurance premiums — third-party litigation funding.”

In support of its advocacy, APCIA cited research from the consulting firm The Perryman Group, which estimated that excess tort costs in the U.S. amount to $368 billion annually — with each household absorbing roughly $2,437 in additional costs per year across items such as home and auto insurance and prescriptions.

While tax reform efforts once included proposals targeting funder profits, budget-rule constraints prevented those from advancing.

Commercial

Burford Capital Underscores Data‑Driven Settlement Strategies

By John Freund |

Burford Capital and Solomonic explore how seasoned funders and advisers can bring precision to the settlement table in high‑stakes disputes.

An article on Burford’s website states that the joint webinar, hosted by James MacKinnon (Burford) and Edward Bird (Solomonic), featured experts from Herbert  Smith  Freehills  Kramer, Pallas  Partners and Dectech to discuss how analytics can reshape settlement strategy. The piece highlights that large‑value disputes often take far longer and face steeper odds of success — not because high‑value claims are inherently weaker, but because risk‑seeking behaviour tends to dominate when the stakes rise.

Burford explains its method of translating a multi‑headed claim into a “weighted average damages outcome,” then discounting for trial risk, appellate risk, enforcement risk and cost of capital to arrive at a present‑day valuation. In one example, a claim with a theoretical maximum of US$500 million was valued at just under US$76 million after risk‑adjustment — meaning a settlement at or above that number would objectively represent success given the circumstances.

The article also reflects on the evolving role of AI and analytics. While data models are improving, Burford cautions that predictive systems remain dependent on data quality and expert inputs — underscoring that modelling alone is not a substitute for judgment and experience.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Proposed TPLF Bill Sparks Privacy Concerns Across Legal Landscape

By John Freund |

A new legislative push to increase transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has ignited concern over the potential erosion of individual privacy rights, especially for plaintiffs involved in sensitive litigation. While the bill aims to shed light on opaque funding arrangements, critics warn that it could open the door to broad and unnecessary disclosures of personal data.

An article in The Hill notes that among the more controversial aspects of the proposed bill is its requirement that plaintiffs and their attorneys disclose the details of any litigation funding agreements. These disclosures could go far beyond identifying funders, potentially revealing case-specific facts, medical or financial histories, and other personally identifiable information. There is no clear guidance on how such disclosures would be protected, raising the specter of public filings that expose vulnerable claimants to undue scrutiny or retaliation.

The breadth of the bill has drawn particular criticism. While aimed at foreign or undisclosed financial backers, its language is sweeping enough to encompass nearly any financial relationship, including arrangements with U.S.-based funders operating under existing regulatory frameworks. Legal observers worry that plaintiffs—especially those with lower means—may be discouraged from pursuing meritorious claims due to the fear of invasive data exposure.

Privacy advocates argue that without significant revisions, the bill risks creating a litigation environment in which strategic intelligence gathering by adversaries, funder interference, and reputational harms become routine. Several industry experts are calling for narrowly tailored disclosures limited to material funding terms, coupled with robust confidentiality protections and strict limits on public access.