FOLLOW US

BNP Paribas is urging a New York federal judge to dismantle a $21 million bellwether verdict awarded to three Sudanese refugees, arguing the jury’s findings clash with Swiss law — the legal framework governing the case — and cannot hold the French bank responsible for the atrocities of Omar al-Bashir’s regime.

Bank Seeks Judgment as a Matter of Law

In a motion filed Friday in the Southern District of New York, BNP demanded judgment in its favor or, alternatively, a new trial or amended judgment. The bank insists that under Swiss Code of Obligations, it cannot be deemed an accomplice to the Sudanese government’s crimes, which include torture, rape, murder and large-scale persecution under the longtime dictator.

The three plaintiffs — part of a class that could reach 23,000 members — secured the nearly $21 million jury award in October. Their lawsuit alleges that beginning in 1997, BNP funneled $20 billion into Sudan over a decade, constructing a clandestine “shadow banking system” that empowered al-Bashir’s brutal rule.

BNP maintains it believed those transactions supported legitimate commerce benefiting Sudanese citizens and denies knowing participation in any abuses.

Why Swiss Law Is Central

BNP’s motion hinges on Article 50 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, a provision enabling full compensation from one wrongdoer when multiple tortfeasors are liable. But the bank argues that accomplice liability is impossible without a “main perpetrator,” and under Swiss law a foreign sovereign cannot be held liable for torts committed abroad.

Since Sudan’s government cannot be treated as a tortfeasor under Swiss law, BNP says the plaintiffs' theory collapses.

Bank Argues All Three Elements of Article 50 Fail

Even if Article 50 could stand independently, BNP contends the plaintiffs failed to meet its three required elements:

1. Illicit Act by a Main Perpetrator

Swiss law does not apply extraterritorially. Acts committed by a foreign government in its sovereign capacity — “even alleged murder, rape or torture,” the motion states — cannot constitute illicit acts under Swiss tort principles. Without a culpable main perpetrator, BNP argues, accomplice liability is legally impossible.

2. BNP’s “Conscious Assistance”

BNP claims it complied with Switzerland’s embargo prohibiting financing for arms purchases. The bank says it had no relationship with the plaintiffs, no role in Sudan’s violent actions, and no responsibility for the conduct of a foreign government. Thus, it argues, it neither knowingly contributed to nor should have foreseen participation in any illicit acts.

3. Causation — Natural and Adequate Cause

BNP asserts the record shows it neither facilitated weapons transactions nor caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. Plaintiffs’ own experts acknowledged that many alleged harms occurred before BNP’s Sudan-related financial services began in 1999. Violence, they conceded, continued unabated even after BNP ceased all Sudan business. At the macroeconomic level, the bank argues, there is no evidence its financial services triggered the injuries.

BNP Pushes to Slash Damages or Restart the Trial

The bank also argues that the damages award “far exceeds” what plaintiffs could recover in a Swiss court. Moreover, BNP says it deserves a new trial on all claims tied to injuries predating April 29, 2001, the cutoff under Sudan’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Because the jury issued a general verdict, BNP contends it is impossible to determine whether time-barred claims improperly influenced liability or damages — a taint the bank argues can only be cured through a complete retrial.

Bank Seeks Immediate Appeal to the Second Circuit

In a separate Friday motion, BNP asked the court to certify the verdict for immediate appeal, arguing that the Second Circuit’s review would bring “vital guidance” on contested Swiss-law issues.

If the appellate court sides with BNP, it could end the litigation outright or streamline future cases; if it sides with the refugees, BNP says the appeal would expedite payment rather than delay it through years of additional proceedings.

Legal Teams

BNP Paribas is represented by:

• Barry H. Berke, Dani R. James, Michael Martinez, Matt Benjamin, David P. Salant of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

• Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Abena Mainoo of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

The plaintiffs are represented by:

• Kathryn Lee Boyd, David L. Hecht, Maxim Price, Michael Eggenberger, Kristen Nelson of Hecht Partners LLP

Counsel for BNP declined comment Monday; plaintiffs' counsel did not respond.