NextFin News - South Africa’s Constitutional Court narrowed one of the country’s longest-running antitrust fights on Tuesday, removing Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC from a case alleging collusion to manipulate the rand while leaving BNP Paribas in the dock. The ruling gives the Competition Commission a partial win in its effort to revive claims tied to alleged foreign-exchange coordination that, the court said, began with conduct stretching from 2007 until at least September 2013.
The court’s order matters because it clarifies which banks can still be pursued in a case that has already moved through multiple procedural rounds. Credit Suisse’s removal reduces the number of active respondents, but the judgment also keeps BNP Paribas exposed and allows the commission to continue pressing the wider alleged conspiracy. For a case built on a global trading network, that distinction is not merely technical: it determines which institutions must still defend themselves against claims of coordinated trading in the dollar-rand market.
The decision comes in a case formally styled BNP Paribas v Competition Commission of South Africa; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v Competition Commission of South Africa; and Competition Commission of South Africa v Bank of America Europe Designated Activity Company and Others. In its order, the court granted leave to appeal in Credit Suisse’s case, allowed the appeal, and replaced the lower-court order with one dismissing the Commission’s application to join CSS. It refused BNP Paribas’s application for leave to appeal, meaning BNP remained a respondent.
The litigation arises from allegations that banks and traders colluded to manipulate the USD/ZAR exchange rate. The judgment states that the accusation covered conduct from 2007 until at least September 2013. The Commission has tried to keep the case alive through successive joinder and jurisdiction arguments, while the banks have challenged whether South African courts can properly exercise jurisdiction over foreign entities and conduct that largely occurred offshore.
That procedural fight has dominated the case because the underlying facts are old, the alleged trading conduct was transnational, and the respondent banks sit across several jurisdictions. The court’s latest ruling does not decide whether the alleged collusion happened. Instead, it redraws the boundary of who remains in the case. In a competition-law dispute of this type, that boundary is often as important as the merits, because it shapes both the evidentiary burden and the leverage of any future settlement or trial.
The broader significance is that South Africa’s competition authorities are still trying to push a cross-border cartel theory through a system that has already rejected or narrowed parts of the case at earlier stages. Credit Suisse’s removal is a setback for the Commission’s reach, but BNP’s continued presence shows that the court is not dismantling the case wholesale. The result is a narrower, not a dead, lawsuit.
What The Court Decided
The Constitutional Court’s order was explicit. In the Credit Suisse matter, it granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the Competition Appeal Court’s decision insofar as it related to Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC. The substitute order dismissed the Commission’s application to join CSS. In the BNP Paribas matter, by contrast, the court refused leave to appeal. That left BNP Paribas as an active respondent.
The judgment is important because it separates the procedural fate of the two banks. A company that is dropped from joinder no longer faces the same immediate litigation posture as a bank that remains in the case. That difference affects discovery demands, litigation costs, reputational exposure, and the scope of any eventual remedy.
The ruling also confirms that this dispute is still being litigated primarily as a jurisdictional and procedural issue, not as a merits trial. The court’s order turns on who can properly be joined and on what basis, not on whether traders actually coordinated to move the rand. For investors and legal teams watching the case, that means the story remains about process, enforcement reach, and the limits of cross-border antitrust jurisdiction.
One of the clearest takeaways from the judgment is that South Africa’s competition regime is still willing to test the outer edge of its jurisdiction in a case involving foreign banks and offshore trading. But the court also showed it will not allow every bank to remain in the case automatically just because the broader theory is plausible. Credit Suisse’s exit demonstrates that the Commission still has to connect each respondent to the alleged conduct with enough specificity to survive appellate scrutiny.
The Commission said the alleged conduct involved banks and traders coordinating in relation to the USD/ZAR exchange rate from 2007 until at least September 2013.
That historical window matters because the longer the alleged conspiracy lasted, the more room there is for different participants to have joined or exited at different times. A court that accepts the broad theory in principle may still narrow the list of defendants bank by bank, especially where the factual record is thin or the jurisdictional link is contested. That appears to be what happened here.
Why Credit Suisse Was Dropped
The practical reason Credit Suisse lost this round is that the court accepted its challenge to joinder. The final order says the appeal against joinder succeeds and the Commission’s application to join CSS is dismissed. In plain terms, that means the Commission did not clear the procedural hurdle needed to keep Credit Suisse in the case on the record before the court.
That matters because joinder is not a side issue in a cartel case. If a respondent cannot be properly joined, the Commission cannot press forward against it in the same way, regardless of how broad the alleged conspiracy may be. The court’s treatment of Credit Suisse shows that a compelling enforcement narrative is not enough on its own; each named defendant must still clear jurisdictional and procedural tests.
The court’s decision does not erase the underlying allegations, and it does not exonerate Credit Suisse on the merits. It simply means the Commission’s case against that entity cannot proceed in this forum on the current procedural footing. That distinction is essential and should not be blurred.
The result is especially notable because the alleged conduct is old, complex, and international. Those cases often depend on email trails, trading records, platform chats, and the location of traders and operations. Where those links are spread across countries and entities, the question of who can be hauled into a South African proceeding can become decisive before a tribunal ever reaches the substantive claims.
For Credit Suisse, the court’s order narrows one legacy legal risk at a moment when the bank name itself no longer exists as an independent operating institution. For BNP Paribas, the court leaves the bank with a live case and the burden of continuing to fight a claim that began more than a decade ago. That asymmetry is the core of the story.
What BNP Paribas’s Survival Means
BNP Paribas’s failed leave-to-appeal bid is just as important as Credit Suisse’s success. It means the Commission keeps one major defendant in the case and can continue arguing that the broader alleged scheme still has enough traction to go forward against the remaining respondents.
That does not mean BNP Paribas has lost on the merits. It means the bank remains exposed to a long-running antitrust battle in South Africa while other defendants fall away. In litigation terms, the difference between remaining a party and being removed can change the economics of defense, the information demanded by the Commission, and the pressure to resolve the dispute.
The court’s refusal to disturb BNP’s status also suggests it was not prepared to cut back the case as aggressively as the bank wanted. Instead, it chose a narrower path: one bank out, one bank still in. That preserves the Commission’s ability to keep pushing the case without endorsing the proposition that all foreign banks should be removed simply because the alleged conduct was global.
This selective pruning may prove more important than it looks. In complex competition matters, courts often move in small procedural steps rather than through sweeping merits judgments. Each step can change the posture of the next round. A narrower case can become a more manageable one for the Commission, but it can also weaken the narrative that the alleged conduct was industry-wide and centrally coordinated.
The court granted leave to appeal for Credit Suisse and ordered that the Commission’s application to join the bank be dismissed.
That line is the legal pivot in the story. It tells market participants and legal observers that the court is willing to police the boundaries of the case while still allowing part of the broader enforcement effort to continue. In effect, the Commission keeps a case; it does not keep everyone.
The Bigger Picture For Cross-Border Enforcement
This ruling matters beyond the banks named in the caption because it shows how difficult cross-border competition enforcement can be when the alleged conduct involves offshore trading desks, multiple legal entities, and a years-long factual record. Regulators may be able to prove that a market was manipulated in principle, but they still have to map that theory onto the correct defendants.
That is especially true in foreign-exchange cases, where trading can occur across time zones and through institutional relationships that are hard to pin to one office or one jurisdiction. The court’s ruling suggests South Africa will continue to press those cases, but it will not do so without limits.
For the market, the immediate takeaway is reputational rather than price-based. There was no major listed-share reaction to parse in this case, and the judgment itself is about legal exposure, not earnings or guidance. Still, legal narrowing can matter for banks because it affects contingent liabilities, disclosure posture, and how management allocates litigation reserves.
The next step will be whether the remaining respondents continue to fight the Commission’s case on the merits and on any remaining jurisdictional issues. The court’s order does not close the file. It simply trims the list of those still facing it.
In that sense, the judgment is a reminder that even long-running cartel cases can turn on procedural details years after the alleged conduct. Credit Suisse is out. BNP Paribas is still in. And the Commission’s broader rand-fixing theory survives, for now, in a slimmer form.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
