The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Peter Nygard says the Christie administration has “never behaved improperly” in its dealings with him, while describing Prime Minister Perry Christie as “a long-time friend”.

The Canadian fashion mogul, in his April 8 defence to Louis Bacon’s $50 million ‘smear campaign’ lawsuit against him, alleged that his Lyford Cay neighbour was using his friendship with Mr Christie to imply that the Government was guilty of “illegal favouritism” towards him.

Mr Nygard, in a complete rebuttal of the hedge fund billionaire’s allegations against him, argued that Mr Bacon and the Save the Bays environmental group had failed to uncover any evidence proving the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had “ever behaved improperly” in their relationship.

Countering Mr Bacon’s action with his own counterclaim for $50 million in damages, and petitioning the New York State Supreme Court to dismiss much of his neighbour’s action, Mr Nygard also claimed his rival was seeking to overthrow the Christie administration.

Referring to a previous court case, in which Mr Bacon and Save the Bays gained judicial permission to use videos possessed by a Nygard ‘whistleblower’ as potential evidence in seven Bahamian court cases, Mr Nygard and his attorneys alleged: “The 1782 application was brought for the supposed purpose of demonstrating the Bahamian government’s illegal favouritism towards Mr Nygård.

“Much of the discovery sought pursuant to the 1782 Application was directed towards Mr Nygård’s communications and interactions with officials of the Bahamian government. Mr Bacon’s theory - outlined in his August 9, 2013, open letter and in the 1782 Application - is that Mr Nygård corrupted the PLP, resulting in preferential treatment towards him.

“In the 1782 Application Mr Bacon sought, among other things, ‘documents and/or communications related to payments, donations, gifts, presents, favours, moneys, assistance, or other consideration (whether in cash or in kind) from [Mr Nygård] to any current or former public official or employee in the Bahamas, or relatives of any such public official or employee’,” the Canadian fashion mogul’s response added.

“But no materials showing ‘payments, donations, gifts, presents, favours, moneys, assistance, or other consideration (whether in cash or in kind)’ to elected Bahamian officials were discovered or produced, because none exist. Mr Nygård’s relationship with the Bahamian government has at all times been proper.”

Save the Bays and Mr Bacon are contesting such an assertion, but Mr Nygard is alleging that they are using his friendship with Mr Christie to “insinuate” improper dealings between himself and the current government over construction activities at Nygard Cay.

“At the moment, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is the elected party in control of the Bahamian government,” Mr Nygard’s New York court filings said.

“The PLP is led by Prime Minister Christie, who happens to be a long-time friend of Mr Nygård. Mr Bacon attempts to use this friendship to insinuate that the PLP improperly favours Mr Nygård.

“But even after filing seven actions in the Bahamas and the 1782 Application, he has been unable to uncover actual evidence that the PLP has ever behaved improperly in any matter regarding Mr Nygård, because such evidence does not exist.

“Upon information and belief, Mr Bacon is seeking to have the current opposition, the Free National Movement (FNM), to whom he has close ties, reinstalled as the party in power, so they can do his bidding and deny Mr Nygård the approvals he seeks to restore Nygård Cay.”

The 1782 application referred to by Mr Nygard sought evidence related to five libel actions brought in the Bahamas by Mr Bacon, which the latter claims are all part of a ‘smear campaign’ against him orchestrated by the Canadian fashion mogul.

Mr Nygard has vehemently denied these allegations, and in his latest court salvo, accused Save the Bays of deliberately stalling the two Judicial Review actions challenging approvals/permits for construction activity at Nygard Cay.

“Mr Bacon has now made his endgame clear,” the Canadian fashion mogul alleged. “He hopes to delay the Judicial Review proceedings he commenced against government officials and Mr Nygård until he can bring about the installation of a government that he controls to rule in his favour, stopping construction at Nygård Cay and frustrating Mr Nygård into selling his property to Mr Bacon.

“Since his more direct attempts to drive Mr Nygård out of the Bahamas did not get the job done, Mr Bacon has now set his sights on unseating the current Bahamian government through his trumped up corruption and other similar charges, and installing a new government that will do his bidding and prevent Mr Nygård from restoring his property to its original state.”

These claims, in turn, have been denied already by Mr Bacon, but Mr Nygard is not letting the issue go, alleging that he has been prevented by the Judicial Review actions from rebuilding the portions of Nygard Cay that were destroyed in the 2009 fire.

“Mr Bacon has also lobbied the Department of Immigration in the Bahamas to not issue work permits for expatriates who were hired to perform reconstruction work at Nygård Cay, in order to further frustrate Mr Nygård,” the fashion mogul alleged.

Mr Nygard also repeated previous denials that he was seeking permission to construct a stem cell treatment facility at Nygard Cay, arguing that minutes of a June 2012 meeting between his team and the Bahamas Investment Authority (BIA) - purporting to show such plans - had been fabricated.

“These minutes purportedly showed that Mr Nygård was proposing to build a stem cell facility treatment on Nygård Cay, which would have been a boon to the medical tourism industry. Mr Nygård’s supposed intent was to curry preferential treatment by the Bahamian government,” the Canadian and his attorneys alleged.

“Upon information and belief, these minutes were, at least in part, falsified. According to Mr Nygård, while the meeting occurred, there was no discussion of any stem cell research facility being built at Nygård Cay, and there never have been any such plans.”

Meanwhile, Mr Nygard is urging the New York court to strike out much of Mr Bacon’s defamation claim against him because “the lion’s share” of the allegations “are time barred”.

The fashion mogul and his attorneys are arguing that 105 of the alleged 135 defamatory statements made against Mr Bacon, purportedly as part of the ‘smear campaign’ against him, were said before January 14, 2014, and thus fall outside New York’s one-year ‘statute of limitations’ on bringing defamation claims.

“Thus, notwithstanding that Nygård would demonstrate on the merits that the allegedly defamatory statements of which plaintiff complains are either true or not defamatory, the majority of plaintiff’s claims in this action should be outright dismissed as untimely,” Mr Nygard’s attorneys argued.

They alleged that Mr Bacon could not plead that Mr Nygard’s involvement in the ‘smear campaign’ was concealed, because he had made such claims dating as far back as August 2013.