The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Peter Nygard and his attorneys are arguing that the “trumped up” murder-for-hire claims made against him unwittingly strengthen his arguments for dismissing a $50 million defamation lawsuit.

The Canadian fashion designer, in newly-filed legal papers, argues that the “fabricated” allegations against him provide further evidence to support his argument that the libel action filed by his arch-enemy, Louis Bacon, does not belong in the New York courts.

Given that the claims in the purported ‘murder plot’ lawsuit, filed against him in the Supreme Court last month by Mr Bacon and four environmental activists, are identical to those underpinning the New York defamation action, Mr Nygard and his attorneys contend that the latter action should be dismissed because the Bahamas is the proper venue to hear such a complaint.

They also claim that the Bahamian Supreme Court action, filed on March 9, 2016, contradicts Mr Bacon’s claim that his New York action - re-filed two days prior - was the only such action launched by the hedge fund billionaire against his Lyford Cay neighbour.

“Two days later, without notice to this court, Bacon and four Bahamians filed a trumped-up action in a Bahamas court against Mr Nygård, alleging, among other things, a plainly fabricated ‘murder plot’ claim,” the Canadian fashion designer’s legal papers state.

“Bacon’s new Bahamas action also purports to plead claims against Mr Nygård based on supposed ‘hate marches’ and other conduct during 2014 and 2015 – much of which are the same events upon which Bacon’s [New York action] is based.

“The filing of Bacon’s new Bahamian action underlies the thrust of defendants’ motion here – that this action does not belong in a New York court.”

Mr Nygard and his attorneys have already enjoyed some success in the New York defamation battle, with an earlier verdict dismissing 105 of the claimed 135 libellous statements against Mr Bacon on the grounds that they were “time barred”.

Undeterred, Mr Bacon has appealed that decision, and in the second re-filing of his original lawsuit, has added a further 34 defamatory statements to supplement the 30 that remained.

“The allegations in connection with these pending 64 allegedly defamatory statements are decidedly Bahamian in nature,” Mr Nygard and his attorneys argue.

“The allegations in this case involve, among other things: distribution of flyers and posting signs in the Bahamas; rallies in the Bahamas; a Bahamian non-profit [Save the Bays]; a ‘mob riot’ in the Bahamas; destruction of property in the Bahamas; the denial of building permits in the Bahamas; a police raid on Bacon’s residence in the Bahamas; a dozen legal actions filed in the Bahamas; and the publication of scores of allegedly defamatory statements concerning Bahamian people, places and events.”

Setting aside whether Mr Bacon’s claims have any truth, Mr Nygard and his attorneys are arguing that their very nature - and the places and people involved - mean that the Bahamas, not New York, is the location where the case should be heard.

“The underlying events in this action are undeniably Bahamian and, as a result, the vast majority of fact witnesses and documents reside outside New York,” Mr Nygard and his attorneys are arguing.

“As a result, the Bahamas is the far more convenient forum, and the court and the parties should not expend any additional resources on a case that Bacon never should have filed in the United States.

“Accordingly, based on its deep connections to the Bahamas, the case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds.”

Not surprisingly, Mr Nygard and his legal team at the US law firm of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and Friedman, have seized on Michael Pintard’s resignation as FNM chairman, and claims that Save the Bays is seeking to destabilise the Christie administration, in a bid to discredit Mr Bacon’s New York action.

“In just a short amount of time, the 2016 Bahamian action has been exposed for what it is: Trumped up litigation involving multi-million dollar pay-offs by Bacon and his proxies for false testimony, and potentially political corruption in the Bahamas,” they argue.

“Among other things, tape recordings submitted in that action disprove Bacon’s core allegations, and Bacon paid his supposed key witnesses, each of whom is a known criminal, $3 million total for their testimony and could have paid as much as $5 million.

“Moreover, the chairman of the political party in the Bahamas supported by Bacon and Save the Bays [the FNM] resigned on March 21 after his involvement with Bacon’s and Save the Bays’ paying of criminals for their falsified testimony was exposed.

“Finally, the Bahamian Minister of Education [Jerome Fitzgerald] recently accused Save the Bays of being nothing more than a political organisation that is seeking to corrupt the Bahamian government and ouster the governing Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) under the guise of an environmental group.”