Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Qatar National Bank v. South Sudan and Bank of South Sudan, Opposition of Respondent Bank of South Sudan to Motion of Petitioner, December 12, 2025

12 Dec 2025
Qatar National Bank (Q.P.S.C.) v. Republic of South Sudan and Bank of South Sudan, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/40
View case details
Opposition of Respondent Bank of South Sudan to Motion of Petitioner
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Opposition of Respondent Bank of South Sudan to Motion of Petitioner
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Timothy J. Kelly
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Philip M. Musolino
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Qatar National Bank, South Sudan, Bank of South Sudan, Musolino & Dessel
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Opposition of Respondent Bank of South Sudan to Motion of Petitioner
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is an Opposition filed by the Respondent, the Bank of South Sudan (BOSS), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The filing contests a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Summary Judgment filed by the Petitioner, Qatar National Bank (QNB). The underlying dispute concerns QNB's petition to enforce a May 7, 2024, ICSID arbitral award rendered against the Republic of South Sudan and BOSS.

Respondent's Principal Arguments

BOSS advances several procedural and substantive defenses to defeat the Petitioner's motion. Procedurally, BOSS argues that QNB failed to strictly comply with Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1) and the Court's Standing Order, which require a separate statement of material facts not in genuine dispute. Relying on established D.C. Circuit precedent, BOSS contends that this procedural defect alone mandates the denial of summary judgment.

Jurisdictional and Public Policy Defenses

Substantively, BOSS challenges the subject-matter jurisdiction of the underlying ICSID tribunal. First, BOSS asserts that QNB functions as a state-controlled entity acting as an agent of the State of Qatar, rendering the arbitration an impermissible state-to-state dispute outside the scope of the ICSID Convention. Second, BOSS argues that ICSID lacked jurisdiction over BOSS specifically, as the Republic of South Sudan never formally designated BOSS to the Centre pursuant to Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention, a defect that could not be cured by QNB's unilateral filing.

Furthermore, BOSS raises a public policy defense rooted in allegations of corruption. Citing the criminal convictions of high-ranking Qatari officials associated with QNB and the Qatar Investment Authority, BOSS argues that the underlying agreements may be tainted by fraud and illegality. Consequently, BOSS asserts that enforcing the award would violate fundamental public policy and requests discovery to substantiate these claims.

Requested Relief

In its prayer for relief, BOSS requests that the Court deny QNB's motion in its entirety. Alternatively, BOSS seeks leave to amend its answer, compel disclosures regarding parallel enforcement proceedings in other jurisdictions, and conduct targeted discovery concerning the alleged corruption and jurisdictional defects.