Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:16-cv-03228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Entesar Osman Kashef v. BNP Paribas, Judge Hellerstein ordered written comments on Switzerland’s letter about Swiss law by September 3, 2025.
The parties to the case were required to file any written comments on the letter by September 3, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.
What happened
Entesar Osman Kashef, et al. v. BNP Paribas S.A. et al. concerns a letter from Switzerland’s ambassador about Swiss law and Switzerland’s sovereignty interests in the case.
The letter addressed how Swiss tort law might apply to banking transactions conducted in Switzerland and raised issues involving accomplice liability, unlawful conduct, causation, and proof. It also urged the court not to base Swiss tort liability on violations of United States sanctions when the transactions were permitted under Swiss law.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein ordered the parties to file any written comments through the court’s electronic filing system by September 3, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A. · No. 1:16-cv-03228
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
The court received an attached letter concerning Swiss law from Switzerland’s Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Ralf Heckner. The letter stated that the Government of Switzerland had no independent knowledge of the case’s underlying merits and that its comments were limited to Swiss law and Swiss sovereignty.
The letter discussed a class-action tort claim concerning banking activities in Switzerland. It stated that the transactions at issue were commercial transactions conducted from Switzerland that were permissible under Swiss law, according to the government’s understanding. It also referred to the court’s earlier ruling that Switzerland had a stronger connection to the conduct at issue than the United States and that Swiss law should govern whether BNP Paribas committed a tort.
Issues Raised in the Letter
The letter expressed concern that Articles 41 and 50(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations might be interpreted inconsistently with Swiss law. It stated that accomplice liability requires an underlying violation by a main perpetrator who could be liable under Swiss tort law. It also stated that an accomplice must have consciously and substantially assisted the unlawful act and that there must be a specific causal connection between the bank’s conduct and each plaintiff’s injury.
The letter further asserted that conduct must be unlawful under Swiss law for tort liability under Articles 41 and 50 to apply. It argued that violations of United States sanctions regulations could not establish Swiss tort liability for transactions occurring in Switzerland. The letter also described Switzerland’s position that claimants must prove each required element of tort liability under a strict-proof standard, except that a lower probability standard may apply to natural causation.
Court’s Action
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the parties to file, in writing through the court’s electronic filing system, any comments they had on the ambassador’s letter by September 3, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The order regulated the proceedings and did not resolve the merits of the tort claims or decide how Swiss law applies.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.