04 Dec 2025

Pogust Goodhead Defeats BHP Bid to Block Deposition of Former Renova Chief

"Pogust Goodhead represented its Brazilian clients in a Section 1782 application seeking testimony from former Renova CEO André de Freitas. The High Court refused BHP’s anti-suit injunction to halt U.S. discovery after the Arkansas court granted subpoenas. Mr Justice Waksman found no basis to restrain the U.S. process; the Arkansas court’s ruling on BHP’s motions to quash remains pending."

Pogust Goodhead represented its Brazilian clients in pursuing U.S. Section 1782 discovery against André de Freitas; BHP opposed the deposition and sought to restrain the U.S. process in the English High Court. The proceedings began with a Section 1782 application filed by Pogust Goodhead in the District Court of Arkansas in November 2024, seeking limited testimony from Mr André de Freitas in connection with Pogust Goodhead’s claim that BHP unlawfully interfered with its retainer rights and the compensation due to its Brazilian clients. The U.S. court granted the subpoenas in January 2025. In April 2025 BHP applied to quash the subpoenas in Arkansas and sought an anti-suit injunction in the High Court in London to prevent the deposition from proceeding; the Arkansas court has yet to decide the motions to quash. In a judgment delivered Wednesday, Mr Justice Waksman refused BHP’s application for an anti-suit injunction. The judge found no basis to characterise Pogust Goodhead’s use of Section 1782 as vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable and concluded that the depositions serve a distinct and legitimate purpose in clarifying Renova’s role in relation to the settlements. The court noted that Mr de Freitas is not a trial witness in the English proceedings, that the deposition concerns pre-action evidence for a separate claim, and that there is no risk of duplicative cross-examination of the kind addressed in earlier authorities. The judge also emphasised BHP’s significant delay—nearly four months after learning of the U.S. subpoenas—in seeking injunctive relief and observed that questions about subpoena scope, alleged misstatements and witness burden are matters for the U.S. District Court, which has already considered them in detailed hearings. As a result, the High Court declined to use its powers to interrupt the ongoing U.S. discovery process. The parties now await the Arkansas court’s determination on BHP’s motions to quash. Pogust Goodhead represented its Brazilian clients with a team composed by: Alicia Alinia (CEO), who commented on the judgment and the importance of hearing testimony from Mr de Freitas to safeguard the rights of the firm’s clients.
Read the full story

Register for free to access daily news.

Register Free
We use cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and serve targeted ads. Read our Cookie Policy.

Cookie Preferences

Customize your cookie settings. Necessary cookies are always enabled.

Strictly Necessary

Required for the website to function (e.g. login, security).

Analytics & Statistics

Help us understand how visitors interact with the website.

Marketing & Ads

Used to deliver relevant ads and track effectiveness.