HNB — THE DISPUTED CASE
THE HNB LOOP
Moratorium acknowledged. Information supplied. Yet the central questions remain unresolved.

HNB is fundamentally different from the other two cases.

There is no shortage of correspondence. HNB has replied, supplied schedules, acknowledged that CBSL moratoriums commenced from 2019, disclosed subsequent rescheduling and capitalised interest, and confirmed that interest waivers were not granted during the moratorium period.

Yet the central questions repeatedly survive the replies.

We asked how the balance was constructed.

We asked whether the moratorium had been correctly applied before subsequent rescheduling.

We asked about waivers, CRIB treatment, capitalised interest, penal charges and repayments.

Finally, we asked for one consolidated reconciliation demonstrating how the claimed balance was reached.

Instead, the correspondence repeatedly refers to earlier schedules, subsequent rescheduling, previous statements and later settlement proposals.

THAT IS INFORMATION. IT IS NOT YET DETERMINATION.

A subsequent rescheduling cannot, by itself, answer whether the balance entering that rescheduling was correct.

A commercial concession cannot, by itself, establish that the amount from which the concession is deducted was correct.

And a collection of schedules cannot substitute for the reconciliation:

**OPENING CAPITAL
LEGITIMATE DRAWDOWNS
PERMISSIBLE INTEREST
− APPLICABLE WAIVERS/RELIEF
− REPAYMENTS
± VALID RESTRUCTURING ADJUSTMENTS
= CORRECT DUE**

Therefore, our concern is not that HNB failed to reply.

**THE PROBLEM IS NOT A LACK OF REPLIES.

IT IS A LACK OF RESOLUTION.**

The certified correspondence that follows allows the reader to decide independently whether the borrower has been moved through:

RELIEF → RESCHEDULING → NOVATION → RECOVERY

without first conclusively establishing:

THE CORRECT BALANCE AFTER RELIEF.

We therefore ask the IMF, CBSL, Presidential Secretariat or any independent reviewer to determine only four matters:

Was the applicable moratorium treatment correctly applied? Was the required relief and classification correctly applied? What is the independently reconstructed correct balance? And should irreversible recovery occur before those questions are determined?

**PROCEDURE MUST NOT OVERTAKE PURPOSE.

CORRESPONDENCE MUST LEAD TO DETERMINATION.
RECOVERY MUST NOT OVERTAKE RECONCILIATION.**