BNP Paribas is heading back into a high-stakes New York spotlight, asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to wipe out a Manhattan jury’s finding that the bank helped enable the Sudanese government’s widespread human-rights abuses. At the heart of the appeal is a thorny question that keeps global banks up at night: how far U.S. courts can reach when foreign-law issues collide with cross-border transactions routed through a Geneva branch.
The appeal and the pause
BNP Paribas filed its notice of appeal in February, asking the Second Circuit to overturn the October 17 verdict and to halt additional bellwether trials while the appeal plays out, according to Bloomberg. The appeals process could stretch for many months or even more than a year, which means the case is likely to hang over the bank and the plaintiffs for quite some time.
The verdict and the class
On October 17, 2025, a Manhattan jury awarded $20.75 million to three bellwether plaintiffs, the first test group in a massive class action that lawyers say represents roughly 23,000 Sudanese refugees living in the United States. The lawsuit, first filed in 2016, claims BNP Paribas provided banking services to Sudan between 1997 and 2011 that helped finance murder, rape and torture, according to Hausfeld.
Swiss law at the center
Although the case is playing out in Manhattan, Swiss law is doing much of the heavy lifting. Judges steered the dispute to Swiss law because much of the bank’s Sudan business ran through BNP Paribas’ Geneva branch, and the plaintiffs are pressing secondary liability under Article 50(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations, court records show. The Swiss government added its own twist, sending a letter to the U.S. trial court stating that the bank’s conduct was permissible under Swiss law, a point that has become central to the bank’s appeal and to broader international-law arguments in the case, according to Justia and reporting by Reuters.
Bank's defense and criminal past
In public statements, BNP Paribas has insisted that its historical transactions complied with European and Swiss law and has labeled the Manhattan verdict “fundamentally flawed,” according to BNP Paribas. At the same time, the bank points to a separate 2014 U.S. criminal resolution in which it pleaded guilty and agreed to pay nearly $9 billion in forfeitures and fines, as documented by the U.S. Department of Justice. That earlier case has loomed in the background, even as BNP argues that the current civil verdict got the law wrong.
What the appeal will test
The Second Circuit now finds itself refereeing a collision of legal concepts that rarely meet in one courtroom. The appeal will test whether a foreign sovereign’s acts are effectively insulated by the governing foreign law, whether ordinary banking services can qualify as “conscious assistance” under Swiss accomplice doctrines, and whether the plaintiffs have shown the kind of “natural and adequate” causation Swiss courts require. Legal commentators warn that if the jury verdict is affirmed, it could reshape how international banks price risk and conduct due diligence in emerging markets, potentially chilling financing to fragile states, according to analysis by Law360/White & Case and related court filings.
What happens next
With the appeal notice filed, the Second Circuit must decide how and when to take up the case, a process that could take many months. U.S. judges have already paused additional bellwether trials while that plays out, Bloomberg reported. Meanwhile, lawyers for the plaintiffs have moved for prejudgment interest that could materially increase the payout for the three trial plaintiffs, according to Hausfeld. For both sides, the real fight is only just getting started.
