Key Points

• BNP Paribas argues that the trial court fundamentally misinterpreted Swiss law in its handling of the Sudan-related litigation.
• The bank says relevant evidence showed that the financial transactions at issue were authorized under Swiss and European law.
• BNP Paribas plans to continue its appeal before the Second Circuit, arguing that the plaintiffs’ latest filing introduces no new substantive arguments.

BNP Paribas is challenging the trial court’s interpretation of Swiss law in ongoing litigation related to financial transactions involving Sudan, arguing that the lower court made multiple legal errors and failed to properly consider evidence supporting the bank’s position.

In a statement, BNP Paribas said it remains confident that the trial court “fundamentally misconstrued Swiss law” and improperly sidelined evidence indicating that the transactions at issue were authorized under applicable Swiss and European regulations.

BNP Paribas Challenges Trial Court’s Interpretation

The bank’s central argument is that the transactions underlying the litigation were legally authorized.

According to BNP Paribas, the trial court’s interpretation of Swiss law failed to account for evidence relevant to the legality of those transactions. The bank maintains that the financial activity complied with the applicable legal framework in Switzerland and Europe.

BNP Paribas also emphasized that its position has received support from outside parties involved in the appellate proceedings.

Government and Legal Experts Back Bank’s Position

The bank said its arguments were supported by amicus briefs from the governments of Switzerland and the United States, as well as submissions from academics, jurists and major industry organizations.

Amicus briefs allow third parties with relevant expertise or interests to provide arguments or information to an appellate court without becoming direct parties to the litigation.

BNP Paribas characterized those submissions as strongly supporting its interpretation of the applicable legal framework.

Bank Rejects Plaintiffs’ Latest Arguments

BNP Paribas also criticized the plaintiffs’ latest brief, which was filed the previous Friday.

The bank said the filing did not introduce new substantive arguments and instead repeated positions that BNP Paribas says have already been rejected by the governments, legal experts and industry organizations supporting its case.

The bank intends to respond formally through its forthcoming reply brief.

Appeal Moves to the Second Circuit

The litigation is now moving through the appellate process, with BNP Paribas preparing to present its arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The appeal will therefore focus heavily on the interpretation of Swiss law, the relevance of the evidence presented to the lower court and whether the trial court properly evaluated the legal framework governing the transactions.

At this stage, the bank’s statement represents BNP Paribas’ position in the litigation, rather than a judicial determination that its interpretation is correct.

Closing Insights

The Sudan litigation remains significant for BNP Paribas because the appellate proceedings will determine whether the trial court’s interpretation of Swiss law withstands further judicial review.

BNP Paribas is positioning the appeal around three central arguments: that the lower court misinterpreted Swiss law, that relevant evidence demonstrating authorization of the transactions was not properly considered, and that external legal authorities have supported the bank’s interpretation.

The next significant development will be BNP Paribas’ reply and subsequent proceedings before the Second Circuit.

For a confidential discussion regarding retail banking strategy, insurance distribution models, customer loyalty ecosystems, digital financial services, or cross-border financial innovation opportunities, contact our senior advisory team.