The French bank submitted an 82-page brief to the US Court of Appeals in New York arguing that a federal district court had wrongly applied Swiss law in the suit.
BNP said in an email to AFP that its 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 law, among several other legal errors."
"BNP Paribas is confident in its arguments and looks forward to presenting its case before the Second Circuit."
But Michael Hausfeld, a co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, said BNP Paribas' brief "recycles" earlier arguments that "failed before and they will fail again," according to a statement to AFP.
"This is the third appeal in this case. Each time BNP has lost," Hausfeld said.
"A financial institution that has admitted to feloniously violating the sanctions laws of the United States and illegally providing unrestricted financing to a rogue regime that had publicly declared its intent to increasing the scale and lethality of a genocide against its own people bears responsibility for the injuries that result."
A New York jury in October 2025 determined that BNP Paribas was complicit with al-Bashir, holding the French bank liable for atrocities that took place under the regime.
The eight-member jury sided with three plaintiffs originally from Sudan, awarding a total of $20.75 million in damages, after hearing testimony describing horrors committed by Sudanese soldiers and the Janjaweed militia.
The French bank, which did business in Sudan from the late 1990s until 2009, provided letters of credit that allowed Sudan to honor import and export commitments.
The October trial involved just three plaintiffs among thousands of Sudanese refugees who have brought suits, potentially meaning the bank could face substantial future litigation.
A decision from the US appeals court is not expected before 2027.
Short link: