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.
