• Responds to over 75 supplemental discovery requests from SL
• Over 90 search terms to check email mailboxes of 13 bank custodians  
• Alleges request for further discovery is a ploy to delay final judgment

The additional discovery allowed in Sri Lanka’s favour has not produced any evidence indicating that Hamilton Reserve Bank (HRB) is not the beneficial owner of its International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs), the bank has claimed.

HRB further contends that Sri Lanka’s requests for more extensive discovery are merely a tactic to delay the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

According to a letter addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote dated 8 January, filed by HRB, the bank has sought the court’s intervention to resolve issues that arose during the limited additional discovery process permitted by the court for the purpose of determining the beneficial ownership of the ISBs allegedly held by HRB.

HRB claimed that under this additional discovery process, it had been burdened with responding to over 75 supplemental discovery requests from Sri Lanka and had also complied with deposition requirements as ordered by the court.

“The bank has worked with Sri Lanka to craft an Electronically Stored Information (ESI) search protocol that is reasonably tailored to identify ESI responsive to Sri Lanka’s additional document requests. It has agreed to search the email mailboxes of 13 bank custodians and to run over 90 search terms across those inboxes. 

“The vast majority of these terms are overbroad and/or not reasonably tailored. Nonetheless, the bank has agreed to run them to avoid any further dispute. The search protocol that the bank has agreed to is attached as Exhibit A. Pursuant to this protocol, the bank has reviewed over 2,800 documents and has produced over 400 additional documents to Sri Lanka,” stated HRB.

Accordingly, the bank claimed that none of the documents produced supported Sri Lanka’s theory that HRB was not the beneficial owner of the ISBs it claimed to hold, and therefore alleged that the period for additional discovery should be considered closed. It further claimed that Sri Lanka’s request for further discovery was a ploy to delay the final judgment.

However, in the joint status report dated 9 December 2025, Sri Lanka had already informed the court that the parties had not reached an agreement on a document search protocol, including the scope of document sources, custodians, and search terms. Sri Lanka contended that HRB’s proposed protocol was unreasonably narrow and stated its intention to elaborate on these concerns in a subsequent submission.

HRB in its letter further claimed that Sri Lanka had requested information regarding the bank’s top depositors. The bank stated that while it was of the opinion that such information was irrelevant, it was willing to provide it to avoid further dispute. 

However, HRB claimed that under Nevis law it was prohibited from disclosing “confidential information,” including details concerning the relationship between a bank and its customers, and further stated that its alternative proposal for producing depositor information without violating Nevis law had been rejected by Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka, in the joint status report dated 9 December 2025, justified its refusal to accept HRB’s alternative proposal on the grounds that it would prevent a meaningful analysis of the true beneficial ownership of the ISBs.

“HRB refuses to produce customer deposit information based on purported concerns about Nevis confidentiality law. In its 30 July responses, HRB expressly agreed to produce the requested information, but yesterday proposed for the first time producing with personal identifying information redacted. This is unworkable, as it would prevent a meaningful analysis of who beneficially owns the bonds. To the extent HRB maintains this position, court intervention may be necessary,” Sri Lanka had asserted.

HRB further stated in the letter that it had now produced all communications with its auditors relating in any way to the ISBs, and had also provided audited financial statements for the years 2022, 2023, and 2024. 

Despite this, Sri Lanka continues to insist that the bank collect, review, and produce every communication with its auditors on matters unrelated to the bonds, which HRB contended would impose an undue and entirely unnecessary burden.

HRB further asserted that the court had authorised only limited discovery of the bank’s internal records and did not permit discovery from non-parties i.e. Benjamin Wey and Warren Raiti. Furthermore, it pointed out that Wey and Raiti were neither employees nor officers of HRB, and their ESI was not within the bank’s control.