• SL justifies need for testimony
• Argues that HRB’s objections are meritless
• HRB argues that SL had not obtained prior permission 

In the ongoing litigation between Sri Lanka and Hamilton Reserve Bank (HRB) before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote has permitted Sri Lanka, despite HRB’s objections, to submit supplementary expert testimony to support its position that the bank is not the beneficial owner of its International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs).

According to a joint status letter dated 13 March, it was revealed that the parties had agreed to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on 16 April, but were unable to agree on a timeline for submission of briefs relating to HRB’s summary judgment motion. 

The disagreement arose from objections raised by HRB to Sri Lanka’s proposed reliance on supplementary expert declarations from Avinash Persaud and Juan Migone.

Sri Lanka maintained that it merely notified HRB of its intention to submit additional declarations from these experts to supplement their earlier opinions and inquired whether HRB wished to depose them. 

However, Sri Lanka claimed that HRB had objected, declined further discussion on scheduling, and insisted on filing a joint status letter before court.

Furthermore, Sri Lanka justified the need for supplementary expert testimony on the basis that it was necessary to update and supplement the prior opinions submitted by Persaud and Migone in light of newly available discovery, and emphasised that such evidence could assist the court both in determining whether further discovery was warranted and in addressing the merits of the matter.

Sri Lanka further argued that HRB’s objections were meritless, noting that the use of expert evidence was neither new nor controversial. It pointed out that expert declarations from Persaud and Migone had already been submitted in July 2025, and that the court had described those opinions as “very revealing and helpful”. 

Sri Lanka also contended that any alleged delay was attributable to HRB’s failure to provide meaningful discovery earlier in the proceedings.

“HRB argues that the evidence is untimely because it is outside the original discovery period. But this ignores that Sri Lanka previously had no opportunity to develop the evidence because of HRB’s failure to provide meaningful discovery. 

“Since July 2023, however, Sri Lanka has made very clear that it is relying on expert evidence. And the court has rejected HRB’s efforts to preclude it,” Sri Lanka stated.

HRB, however, argued that Sri Lanka had not obtained prior permission from court to submit additional expert declarations and that allowing such evidence at this stage would violate Federal Rule 26, which requires timely disclosure of expert testimony. 

The bank further contended that permitting supplementary expert evidence would lead to delays and trigger further rounds of rebuttal evidence, prolonging the proceedings unnecessarily.

Accordingly, HRB claimed: “If Sri Lanka still believes there is a basis for asserting that someone other than the bank is the beneficial owner of the bonds, it is time for Sri Lanka to make that argument to the court, with citation to the factual record. 

“If for some reason Sri Lanka believes that expert testimony is required to establish who the beneficial owner of the bonds is, it can include that argument in its supplemental brief and the bank can oppose it.”

Notwithstanding these objections, Judge Cote on 13 March, responding to the joint status letter, permitted Sri Lanka to proceed with supplementary expert testimony.