Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A. and BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings
Entesar Osman Kashef, Abulgasim Suleman Abdalla, and T. Dany Turiuman v. BNP Paribas S.A. and BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:16-cv-03228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kashef v. BNP Paribas, Judge Hellerstein granted BNP Paribas’s Rule 50 motion against one defendant and reserved judgment on the other.
The ruling removes BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. as a defendant, while leaving the motion concerning BNP Paribas S.A. unresolved.
What happened
In Entesar Osman Kashef, Abulgasim Suleman Abdalla, and T. Dany Turiuman v. BNP Paribas S.A. and BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp., the plaintiffs claimed that BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. helped a larger scheme involving the processing of sanctioned Sudanese transactions. The opinion says the company served a compliance function and lacked significant executive power.
The defendants asked the court to rule in their favor under Rule 50, which allows a judge to resolve a claim when no reasonable jury could legally find for the opposing party based on the trial evidence. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could hold BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. responsible for BNP Paribas S.A.’s actions.
Judge Hellerstein granted the motion as to BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. and directed the Clerk to dismiss that company as a defendant. He reserved judgment on the motion as to BNP Paribas S.A.; costs were deferred until the lawsuit is resolved.
The detailed version
- Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A. and BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings · No. 1:16-cv-03228
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Oct. 6, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs asserted that BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. assisted a larger scheme by BNP Paribas S.A. through failing to prevent the processing of sanctioned Sudanese transactions. The opinion states that BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. served a compliance function for other entities, had no significant executive power, and was subordinate to BNP Paribas S.A.
The court cited evidence that BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. had found that BNP Paribas S.A. failed to comply with sanctions and recommended that BNP Paribas S.A. stop the violations, but BNP Paribas S.A. did not do so. The court stated that compliance officers may advise or inform executives about their obligations but cannot be blamed for executives’ failure to follow that advice.
Motion and standard
The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule permits the court to resolve an issue against a party when, after that party has been fully heard at trial, no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for that party on the issue. In applying the rule, the court must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion and may not decide witness credibility or weigh the evidence.
Ruling
The court found that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could hold BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. responsible for BNP Paribas S.A.’s actions. The court also said that keeping BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. in the case unnecessarily confused the issues.
Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law as it related to BNP Paribas US Wholesale Holdings, Corp. The Clerk was directed to dismiss BNP Paribas Wholesale Holdings, Corp. as a defendant. The court reserved judgment on the motion as to BNP Paribas S.A., and deferred costs until the entire lawsuit is resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.