A row has broken out among some of the biggest names in the City as a vulture hedge fund launched its latest crusade with an assault on global miner BHP.

Elliott Advisors went public in April with a £35billion overhaul plan for the FTSE miner, accusing it of major underperformance and demanding changes to structure and strategy.

Yesterday, it ramped up its battle, claiming there were 'growing calls for change' from frustrated BHP shareholders such as investment houses Schroders, AMP Capital, Escala, and Tribeca Global, Aberdeen Asset Management, and BT Investment Management.

They are quoted as being critical of various aspects of the way BHP is run.

US hedge fund Elliott went public in April with a £35bn overhaul plan for BHP, accusing it of major underperformance and demanding major changes to structure and strategy

But it is understood several of those named reject the impression they are supportive of Elliott's aggressive campaign and feel some comments have been taken out of context.

One told the Mail: 'We are pretty confident with the direction of travel of the company [BHP]... there are some things that need changing but they seem to be moving in the right direction.'

New York-based activist investor Elliott has a 4.1 per cent stake in BHP and wants an exit from its US oil shale business, to unlock value for shareholders.

It called on the firm, which is listed in Australia and London, to 'upgrade' its board of directors as it chooses a chairman to replace Jac Nasser.

Elliott says BHP has underperformed closest rival Rio Tinto by 11 per cent over the past ten years and 628 per cent over 30 years.

It wants the new chairman to spin off its oil and gas operations, unify its dual Australia-London listing, and prioritise shareholder returns for BHP's owners.

It added: 'Over the past few weeks shareholders have made clear that substantial and meaningful change is needed.'

It quoted a note from major BHP shareholder AMP Capital saying AMP had called on BHP to conduct an 'independent assessment' of Elliott's proposal on the listing structure and prove the worth of its US onshore business.

But the full letter to clients, seen by the Mail, also says Elliott needs to 'give BHP the time to set out the company's case for keeping onshore US oil and gas in the BHP portfolio, and then time to hit the targets it sets'.

Elliott also quoted Schroders Investment Management as saying: 'BHP's dual-listed structure is a vestige of the diabolical Billiton transaction whilst the US shale gas foray has been even more painful.'

The comment was made in a blog posting on May 3 by the company's head of Australian Equities, Martin Conlon.

But he also said: 'At a company level, the proposal by Elliott Advisors to unlock value in BHP Billiton raised yet more questions on incentives and outcomes.

'We are dominantly focused on initiatives which will allow the business to become more efficient and deliver improved profitability.

'Those focused on delivering greater short-term market capitalisation through listing businesses in jurisdictions paying more inflated prices for the same assets are of limited interest.

The Elliott proposals have a bit of both, however, their arguments are not without merit.' BHP has not responded to Elliott's missive but chief executive Andrew Mackenzie has said that it was confident it had everything in place to increase returns and grow shareholder value.

Mackenzie met Elliott in May, with Elliott spokesman Michael O'Looney saying afterwards the meeting had been constructive.

An investor survey in Australia this month found local retail investor support for Elliott's push for change at BHP, with nearly half of all investors agreeing changes were needed.

Elliott declined to comment.