BNP Paribas has failed in its attempt to overturn a $21 million verdict holding it accountable for financially supporting Sudan’s regime under former President Omar al-Bashir, which perpetrated widespread human rights abuses against civilians.
In a landmark ruling, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York’s Southern District Court denied the bank’s motion, stating it failed to prove the jury’s findings were a “serious erroneous result” or “miscarriage of justice.”
The decision drew on courtroom testimony and internal bank documents revealing executives’ concerns over providing financial services to the Sudanese regime amid US sanctions.
Case Background:
The “BNP Paribas” case, spanning nearly a decade, examines the French bank’s role as a key financier for Bashir’s dictatorship from 1997 to 2011. In the 1990s and early 2000s, BNP Paribas granted Sudanese authorities access to international money markets, enabling funding for military operations that fueled atrocities.
The US government recognized the Sudanese regime’s Darfur attacks as genocide in 2004, which killed around 200,000 civilians and displaced two million between 2003 and 2005, per the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Bashir in 2009 on genocide and crimes against humanity charges, including murder, extermination, torture, and rape; he was ousted in a 2019 coup.
This bellwether trial the first of its kind saw a jury last month award compensation to three former Sudanese civilians. Plaintiffs’ attorneys estimate up to 23,000 Sudanese refugees in the US could file similar claims worth billions, though BNP Paribas disputes the figure.
The bank’s shares dropped as much as 10.6% post-verdict amid fears of massive liabilities.
Details of the Latest Hearing:
At Wednesday’s Manhattan federal court session—the first since the verdict—Judge Hellerstein rejected BNP Paribas lawyer Barry Berke’s claims that plaintiffs’ counsel, including Kathryn “Lee” Boyd of Hecht Partners, improperly coached witnesses or pressured experts. He deemed the allegations “serious and disturbing” but uninfluential on the trial, telling Berke: “This is nothing… This is not taint.” Boyd denied the claims in a Bloomberg interview, calling them “100% falsehoods” with “no unethical conduct.”
BNP Paribas argues under governing Swiss law that its “essential financial services” to individuals and businesses were lawful and show no causation to government violence, while challenging evidence sufficiency and the judge’s legal application. The judge urged settlement, noting: “I can’t try 23,000 cases,” and announced selection of three more claimants for the next trial. Pre-trial, firms like Hausfeld LLP and Zuckerman Spaeder sought to disqualify Boyd over alleged misconduct, highlighting rifts among refugee lawyers.
Impact of the Ruling:
The verdict sets a historic precedent for civil liability of global banks in facilitating regimes accused of crimes against humanity, as stated by Hausfeld. It adds to BNP Paribas’ history of penalties, including a $8.9 billion fine in 2014 for sanctions violations involving Iran and North Korea.
Source Al-Yurae-Bloomberg
