Bodner v. Banque Paribas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs stated a claim under the ATS against banking institutions for aiding and abetting and facilitating acts of genocide
• denying motions to dismiss by French banks accused of participation in scheme to expropriate assets of Jewish customers during Nazi occupation and continuing to retain such assets
• noting, in denial of a forum non conveniens motion, that New York State had expressed a public policy interest in Holocaust litigation through the Governor’s executive order
• denying a forum non conveniens motion where “plaintiffs live within the jurisdiction and would have difficulty traveling to France,” but defendants were “large banking institutions that maintain offices and transact business in the United States and specifically New York City”
• applying the continuing violations doctrine in a case where plaintiffs asserted claims under international law related to a conspiracy to steal property from Jewish families, suffering at the hands of the Nazis, during World War II
• explaining in case alleging French banks had failed to return assets seized during the Holocaust that the political question doctrine was “not even raised by the defendants here and [is] irrelevant to these facts in any event”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).