The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge was yesterday urged to swiftly clarify that his recent verdict does not mean the challenge to the Department of Inland Revenue’s demand for nearly $10m in unpaid taxes owed on the former Ginn project’s land assets is dismissed.

Attorneys for LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings, the two corporate entities that hold several thousand acres in Grand Bahama’s West End, called on Justice Franklyn Williams KC to confirm that the separate Tax Appeal Commission case - disputing the tax authority’s land valuation, and therefore the real property tax arrears allegedly owed - remains live and unresolved.

Michael Scott KC, their principal attorney, in an August 11, 2026 letter to the judge and his clerk, Barron Musgrove, asserted that “a serious public misunderstanding” had arisen as a result of Justice Williams’ recently-published July 31 verdict in which he refused to give LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings permission to bring Judicial Review proceedings.

That case, which was brought before the Supreme Court, focused on a separate element of the Ginn real property tax dispute - the Department of Inland Revenue’s (DIR) bid to sell a 1,143 acre parcel from the project’s West End holdings for $26m to Bristol Pointe Ltd, an affiliate of Coakley International. The latter has unveiled an ambitious $6.5bn proposal to redevelop the destination via a project billed as creating 2,800 construction jobs and 6,000 permanent posts for Bahamians.

While Justice Williams’ verdict will have no practical impact, given that the separate Tax Appeal Commission case remains active and undertakings have been given on the DIR and Treasurer’s behalf not to pursue or close the Coakley International sale until this is resolved, Mr Scott reiterated fears that an “erroneous impression” has been created of its dismissal and that this is “materially prejudicial” to his clients.

It is understood that LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings, and their attorneys, are especially concerned that Coakley International/Bristol Pointe and its principals may seek to exploit Justice Willams’ verdict and promote the decision as removing all obstacles to their 1,143-acre purchase and wider plans for redeveloping Grand Bahama’s West End.

The Supreme Court verdict, and resulting controversy and fall-out, have also emerged just as LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings have finally succeeded in their long-running, almost 18-month fight to regain control - in their capacity as owners - at Old Bahama Bay and oust Island Ventures Resort and Club (IVRC), the entity formed by the 73 condo owners to manage the property following Ginn’s demise.

John McDonald, IVRC’s president and leading figure, did not respond to Tribune Business calls and messages seeking comment before press time last night, but Mr Scott confirmed to this newspaper that his clients have finally repossessed the West End resort and changed the locks.

He added that all jobs will be protected and safeguarded, with Don Churchill, the well-known Grand Bahama hospitality management consultant and realtor, taking on all former IVRC employees through his management company that will operate Old Bahama Bay moving forward.

Meanwhile, Mr Scott, in his letter to Justice Williams, requested that the Supreme Court issue “without delay a short clarification” of addition to his ruling affirming that the matter before him is separate and distinct from the Tax Appeal Commission challenge, upon which a decision is now awaited. While the Supreme Court case dealt with the DIR’s threatened sale of the 1,143-acre parcel, the Commission proceedings focus on the valuation and amount of real property tax arrears owing.

“We write respectfully, but as a matter of urgency, to draw to Your Lordship's attention to a serious public misunderstanding arising from the reasons recently delivered in the related Judicial Review proceedings,” Mr Scott wrote.

“Those reasons are now being circulated and reported… in a manner which has created the erroneous impression that the appellants [LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings] tax appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. That is not the procedural or factual position.

“The tax appeal remains pending before the Tax Appeal Commission. The chief valuation officer's [Shunda Strachan] preliminary objection, including the contention that the appeal was brought out of time, was fully argued before the Commission. The Commission reserved its decision and has not yet delivered it. The tax appeal has therefore not been dismissed, whether for delay or otherwise.”

Justice Williams, in his verdict, found that the Judicial Review by LRA-OBB (standing for Lubert Adler-Old Bahama Bay) and Resort Holdings was launched too late, and failed to meet the deadlines set by Bahamian law. As a result, even though he conceded the point was never argued by either the Ginn land owners or the Attorney General’s Office, he found the delay was “dispositive of the claim” and both dismissed it and any extension of time to launch the action.

Mr Scott, though, said the “question of delay” was never put before Justice Williams and the Supreme Court but, instead, argued before the Tax Appeal Commission which has yet to rule. “The applicants did not ask the Supreme Court to determine either the merits or the timeliness of the tax appeal,” he wrote.

“Our immediate concern is particularly acute because these proceedings, and your Lordship's decision, have attracted immense public and media scrutiny. The reasons are presently being widely circulated and reported upon, with the consequence that an erroneous impression has gained currency in the public domain that the underlying tax appeal has already been dismissed on the ground of delay. It has not.

“The Tax Appeal Commission has delivered no decision. The preliminary issue concerning the timeliness of the appeal was argued before that Commission and remains reserved for its determination…. That misunderstanding is materially prejudicial to the applicants and, more importantly, risks creating public confusion as to the respective proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Tax Appeal Commission,” Mr Scott added.

“Given the exceptional degree of public scrutiny which this matter has attracted, we respectfully submit that the distinction ought now to be placed beyond doubt.” Justice Williams had even signed an earlier Supreme Court Order, dated March 12, 2026, giving effect to the DIR and Treasurer undertaking not to proceed with the Coakley International deal.

This stipulates the Department of Inland Revenue and the Bahamas Treasurer take no further steps to close the sale until the challenge LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings are mounting over the unpaid tax is resolved. The Order, which has been seen by this newspaper, mandates that the Department of Inland Revenue and Treasurer “do respectfully undertake not to complete the sale of the property…. until after the completion of the appeal proceedings”.

Mr Scott, in effect, is arguing that Justice Williams went further than the pleadings and actual case that was before him by deciding the substantive Judicial Review issues when he and his clients were still at the preliminary stage of only seeking the Supreme Court’s permission to launch proceedings.

Meanwhile, he confirmed that LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings have wrested control of Old Bahama Bay from IVRC, with the actual resort as well as the marina and associated amenities, back in their hands. Mr Scott said steps are also being taken to preserve the jobs of an estimated 30 employees previously employed by IVRC.

“What they are going to do, because they don’t want to create an unemployment situation for people working out there, is they are going to put together a hospitality company operated by Don Churchill in Freeport and West End, and they will substitute his service company for what IVRC was doing,” Mr Scott told Tribune Business.

“What will happen with them is Don Churchill will operate a management services company on behalf of LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings, and provide the same functions as IVRC, which means there will be no loss of employment.

“They do not want to leave the situation where West End is closed down,” Mr Scott added of his clients. “It’s like Bimini - a port of call for weekend getaways from Florida. The way forward is Don Churchill substituting for what IVRC is doing. It will be new business as usual.”

Acknowledging the lengthy effort to oust IVRC, in which at least four attempts to achieve this objective were met, he added: “It was not just the last 18 months. It’s been two months of continuous pressure and being resisted not just by IVRC but by the police. The police were running interference for IVRC, which I found extraordinary. I write three letters to the Commissioner of Police and not one was replied to. All we wanted was IVRC out, and that’s where we are.”

Mr Scott and his clients took the position that, because IVRC has no lease agreement with them and only held a “bare licence” to operate the resort, it was therefore not a tenant at Old Bahama Bay. As a result, they argued that no eviction notice or Supreme Court possession order was required for LRA-OBB and Resort Holdings, and their managing agent, Reunion Cay, to reclaim operational and management control.