BNP Paribas filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals on the May 22, 2026. The brief demonstrates that the trial court fundamentally misconstrued Swiss law and prevented the Bank from introducing highly relevant evidence showing that the financial transactions at issue were authorized under Swiss and European laws, among several other legal errors.
On May 29, 2026, several respected amici—including the Governments of Switzerland and the United States, distinguished academics and jurists, and leading industry organizations—filed amicus briefs in support of the Bank’s legal arguments. BNP Paribas is confident in its arguments and looks forward to presenting its case before the Second Circuit.
1. Banking operations complied with applicable European and Swiss laws
BNP Paribas has never financed activities related to the genocide in Darfur. Swiss and European sanctions during the relevant period prohibited financial institutions from facilitating the import of weapons and other military equipment into Sudan.
To avoid deepening the economic and humanitarian toll of the crisis on Sudan’s civilian population, however, Swiss and European policymakers did not prohibit ordinary commercial operations, such as transactions for essential goods like cotton, oil, and grain. BNP Paribas strictly complied with these laws and has never facilitated transactions for arms or other military equipment in Sudan.
2. The verdict was based on the misinterpretation of Swiss law—a position strongly supported by the Swiss Government, Swiss academics, and former Swiss jurists
The verdict against BNP Paribas was legally erroneous. The trial court had previously determined that, according to U.S. law, Swiss law governed plaintiffs’ claims. But the verdict was based on a misapplication of Swiss law.
The trial court’s interpretation contradicted clear precedent from the Swiss Supreme Court, as well as the views of the Swiss Government, as to the correct interpretation of its own laws.
On appeal, BNP Paribas’ opening brief explains how the district court misconstrued Swiss law and why those errors require reversal. The Swiss Government, as well as Swiss jurists and academics, have submitted amicus briefs in support of the Bank’s legal arguments.
3. No causal link exists between the banking operations and the plaintiffs’ harm
Swiss law does not recognize or allow plaintiffs’ sweeping theories of liability or causation. BNP Paribas, which never facilitated Sudanese transactions in weapons or military equipment, did not cause plaintiffs’ injuries. BNP Paribas provided routine banking services to facilitate transactions in essential goods, transactions that did not play any direct role in the violence perpetrated against civilians.
The 2014 case cannot be used as the basis for liability. In that case, the U.S. Department of Justice expressly recognized that the U.S. government was the victim of the Bank’s violation of U.S. sanctions and that Sudanese civilians were not.
And the Swiss Government has repeatedly emphasized that imposing liability under Swiss law for conduct that was legal in Switzerland risks offending Swiss sovereignty and comity among nations.
4. BNP Paribas was prevented from presenting crucial evidence at the October trial
BNP Paribas was not allowed to present, and the jury was not allowed to hear, extensive evidence that the transactions at issue fully complied with European and Swiss laws.
This highly relevant evidence was excluded, even as the jury was told about unrelated conduct under United States law that had no bearing on the claims at issue.
5. The verdict relates to the claims of three individuals; the parties did not litigate any class claims at trial
The jury’s finding of liability and award of damages was specific to the three individual plaintiffs.
The trial court has expressly rejected the suggestion that the jury verdict would resolve any class claims and has indicated that it will continue to try the claims of other plaintiffs on an individual basis.
Any assertion that liability or damages have been established for the class is plainly wrong.
6. Plaintiffs' own lawyers have accused each other of ethical misconduct
Plaintiffs’ lawyers have accused each other of serious ethical misconduct that improperly influenced witness testimony.
During trial, the judge called these allegations “serious and disturbing,” but erroneously declined to hold an evidentiary hearing.
For more information:
- BNP Paribas Statements on Sudan Litigation (October 2025 to June 2026)