Norwegian NCP Finds Aker BP Failed to Meet Human Rights Due Diligence Standards in Lundin Asset Acquisition

On 18 June 2025, the Norwegian National Contact Point (NCP) published its Final Statement in PAX and others v. Aker BP ASA and Aker ASA, concerning alleged non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

The complaint was brought by eight civil society organisations, including PAX, Norwegian Church Aid, and Swedwatch. Tim Cooke-Hurle advised the complainants. 

The case concerned Aker BP’s 2022 $14bn acquisition of Lundin Energy’s Norwegian oil and gas assets. It was alleged that Aker BP failed to assess whether the transaction could adversely affect access to remedy for victims of past human rights abuses linked to Lundin’s operations in Sudan (1997–2003), and that Aker ASA (a principle shareholder in Aker BP) failed to use its leverage as a shareholder to ensure appropriate human rights due diligence was conducted.

The NCP found that Aker BP did not meet its responsibilities under Chapter IV (Human Rights) of the OECD Guidelines. 

• While Aker BP undertook general due diligence during the transaction, this did not include adequate human rights due diligence into the risks of adverse impacts of the transaction on the victims’ right to an effective remedy.
• Through an indemnity clause, Aker BP had secured that all liability remained in Lundin Energy (now Orrön Energy) but the company did nothing to ensure that this company was financially capable of offering adequate remedy to the victims of the alleged human rights abuses. Considering the risk that Lundin Energy (Orrön Energy) would be held liable for contributing to the severe human rights violations in Sudan, the NCP found that Aker BP should have used its leverage during the negotiations to seek assurances from Lundin Energy and its shareholders that the right to remedy would be respected. Aker BP should have sought, to the extent possible, guarantees that adequate financial resources would be available for the purpose of providing remedy to victims of war crimes during Lundin Energy’s operations in Sudan. On review of the evidence, the NCP’s found that it does not appear any such actions were taken. 

In the circumstances, the NCP found that Aker BP’s human rights due diligence failed to seek to prevent and/or mitigate the potential adverse impacts on the victims’ right to an effective remedy and did not meet the expectations in the Guidelines in this regard.

The NCP further found that Aker ASA did not meet the expectations of the Guidelines. It should have used its leverage over Aker BP to engage with that company to seek to prevent and mitigate the risk of negative impact on the victims’ right to remedy. The NCP found that this was not done.

The NCP’s decision therefore emphasises that remedy-related risks must form part of human rights due diligence, particularly in transactions involving legacy harms.

The NCP recommended that Aker BP carry out new, targeted human rights due diligence, including by engaging with stakeholders, to assess the potential impact on access to remedy and to determine whether it should take a role in remediation. It also recommended that Aker BP and Aker ASA  should ensure effective implementation of human rights due diligence and meaningful engagement with stakeholders in relation to mergers and acquisitions. Further, those companies should ensure transparency in how they assess actual and potential adverse impacts in mergers and acquisitions, ensuring sufficient information to show the adequacy of their response to such impacts is accessible to rights holders.

The victims—communities in what is now South Sudan—allege displacement, killings, and other grave abuses linked to Lundin’s oil exploration activities between 1997 and 2003. The NCP’s findings reinforce the expectation that Aker BP engage meaningfully with those affected, including by assessing whether and how to contribute to, or use their leverage to ensure, redress. This comes in the context of ongoing war crimes trials in Sweden against two former Lundin executives, who are being prosecuted for complicity in serious international crimes arising from the same events.

The decision highlights the expectation that companies assess not only future human rights risks but also the impact of transactions on existing victims’ access to remedy. It is particularly relevant for legal and ESG advisors involved in M&A, where legacy human rights issues may give rise to responsibilities under frameworks such as the OECD Guidelines and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.