From Sudan to Manhattan: BNP Paribas appeal tests limits of bank liability

BNP Paribas is challenging a landmark U.S. court verdict tied to Sudan-era human rights abuses. The appeal could redefine how far global banks can be held legally responsible for transactions linked to governments accused of atrocities.

A major legal battle involving BNP Paribas is now drawing global attention as the French banking giant seeks to overturn a landmark U.S. jury verdict connected to atrocities committed in Sudan under former President Omar al-Bashir.

The case, being reviewed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, could become one of the most important legal tests yet on the extent of bank liability in international human rights cases.

Last year, a federal jury in New York ordered BNP Paribas to pay $20.75 million in damages after finding the bank liable for helping enable human rights abuses in Sudan. The verdict covered only three test plaintiffs, but the lawsuit represents nearly 23,000 Sudanese refugees currently living in the United States. That means the bank could face significantly larger financial exposure if the ruling ultimately stands.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Manhattan federal court in 2016. Plaintiffs alleged that BNP Paribas knowingly provided banking and financial services to Sudan’s government between 1997 and 2011. According to the complaint, those services helped support a regime accused of widespread murder, torture, rape, and violence against civilians during the conflict in Sudan.

The United States officially recognized the Sudan conflict as genocide in 2004, increasing international scrutiny on companies and financial institutions linked to the regime.

One of the most unusual elements of the case is the application of Swiss law instead of U.S. law. That decision was made by Judge Alison Nathan before her elevation to the appeals court in 2022. She concluded that Swiss law should govern the dispute because BNP Paribas mainly handled Sudan-related banking operations through its Geneva branch.

Legal experts say disputes involving foreign laws often become highly complicated in U.S. courts. Such cases frequently lead to appeals, especially when judges interpret another country’s legal framework differently from how that country interprets its own laws.

BNP Paribas argues exactly that in its latest appeal.

In a 67-page filing submitted by lawyers from [Gibson Dunn](https://www.gibsondunn.com?utm_source=chatgpt.com) and [Cleary Gottlieb](https://www.clearygottlieb.com?utm_source=chatgpt.com), the bank claims that trial judge Alvin Hellerstein misapplied Swiss legal principles during the proceedings.

The bank says the court ignored how Switzerland itself interprets its laws on sovereign immunity and accomplice liability.

A key part of BNP’s argument centers on a letter sent to the U.S. court shortly before the trial by Ralf Heckner. In that letter, the ambassador argued that the court’s interpretation of Swiss law did not reflect actual Swiss jurisprudence. He described the rulings as effectively creating “a new U.S. court-created law.”

According to the ambassador, Switzerland views the court’s position as a challenge to Swiss sovereignty.

BNP Paribas argues that under Swiss law, Sudan itself is protected by sovereign immunity and cannot be sued privately. The bank says this point is crucial because if Sudan cannot legally be held responsible as the primary actor, then BNP Paribas also cannot be held liable as an alleged accomplice.

Lawyers representing the Sudanese plaintiffs strongly disagree.

In court filings, they argued that the Swiss ambassador’s letter lacks strong legal authority and came too late in the process. The plaintiffs say the same arguments had already been raised earlier by BNP Paribas and were rejected by the court.

The appeal now places the spotlight on a broader question facing the global banking industry: Can financial institutions be held legally responsible for providing routine banking services to governments later accused of severe human rights violations?

The answer could have major consequences for international banks operating across politically sensitive regions.

The case also arrives shortly after another high-profile reversal involving foreign law in the United States. Earlier this year, the same appeals court overturned a massive $16.1 billion judgment against YPF and Argentina, ruling that the lower court had improperly interpreted Argentine corporate law.

That decision has strengthened expectations that foreign-law disputes may receive closer scrutiny from appellate judges.

For BNP Paribas, the outcome could determine whether the bank faces years of additional litigation and potentially billions in further damages.

For international legal experts, the appeal could help define how U.S. courts balance human rights claims, sovereign immunity protections, and foreign legal systems in an increasingly globalized financial world.

💬 Did this help? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Drop a comment below and tick the "Notify me" box to join the conversation.

Supporting this blog: As a free resource, this site is supported by the ads you see. Simply staying to read or sharing this post with a friend helps keep the content coming. Thank you for being here!