• HRB opposes SL’s request to file additional arguments in ongoing bond dispute
• Claims SL had ample opportunity to respond and is now delaying the process
• SL argues new evidence warrants further submissions on bond ownership
• US District Court to determine whether additional briefing will be allowed in the case

Hamilton Reserve Bank (HRB) has accused Sri Lanka of delaying the ongoing proceedings before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, objecting to Sri Lanka’s attempt to file a seven-page letter in response to the bank’s renewal of its summary judgment motion.

Both parties filed a joint letter addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote on 21 January, wherein both parties appeared to disagree on whether additional briefing was warranted with respect to HRB’s summary judgment motion.

According to HRB, when the parties had conferred on 16 January, Sri Lanka had expressed a need to file a further seven-page letter in reply to the bank’s renewal of the summary judgment motion and sought time until Friday (31 January), which it claimed amounted to a sur-reply.

The bank pointed out that it had filed its summary judgment motion on 31 July 2023 with the deadline for summary judgment briefing closing on 31 July 2023, and that Sri Lanka had not sought leave to file a sur-reply at the time. 

HRB claimed that Sri Lanka had ample opportunity to respond to its summary judgment motion and had in fact already filed in reply a 23-page brief, an expert report, and 26 exhibits amounting to over 400 pages.

The bank further claimed: “Sri Lanka also has not identified any legitimately new issue that a sur-reply would address. When the parties conferred last week, the sole issue Sri Lanka identified is whether its purported ‘expert’ declaration (from Avinash Persaud) may be considered. 

“This issue does not warrant a sur-reply because Sri Lanka first offered Mr. Persaud’s declaration with its opposition papers after failing to serve a timely expert report during discovery. In reply, Plaintiff properly argued that Rule 37 preclusion applies, and in all events, Mr. Persaud’s newly disclosed opinions are speculative and wrong.

“Finally, earlier today, Sri Lanka identified two irrelevant items of purported ‘new evidence’: a 2023 article and an unrelated case dismissed with prejudice on 25 July 2024 (only 17 days after it was filed). Neither item warrants a sur-reply, since Sri Lanka admittedly intends to use them to advance the same arguments about ‘ownership’ that have already been extensively briefed.  Indeed, Sri Lanka already cited the article to the court in its prior stay filings.”

In response, Sri Lanka took up the position that because HRB had argued for excluding the declaration of Persaud and related exhibits in its reply, the country had not had the opportunity to explain why these materials were appropriately considered. 

Furthermore, Sri Lanka claimed: “After the completion of briefing, and while these proceedings were stayed (and/or while motions to stay were pending), new evidence came to light regarding HRB’s purported beneficial ownership of the bonds. This includes a September 2023 Financial Times article titled ‘The mysterious ‘global financier’ suing Sri Lanka,’ as well as filings in a July 2024 lawsuit against HRB, see Grand Fame Co. Ltd. et al. vs. Hamilton Reserve Bank Ltd., No. 653437/2024 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.). 

“This previously unavailable evidence suggests, among other things, that the bonds may be held on behalf of Benjamin Wey and/or HRB’s corporate parent, Fintech, and underscores the need for additional discovery on these matters.”