The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A now-Cabinet minister last year warned a US investor he was “in direct contravention of Bahamian law” through his involvement with a Briland tourism operator doing business in an industry exclusively reserved for 100 percent local ownership only.

Darron Pickstock, then a Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien attorney and partner, told Pablo Conde and his US lawyer via a May 21, 2025, e-mail that the Government had made it “abundantly clear” that the Conch & Coconut tour operator, destination management and visitor “concierge” business was in a sector of the Bahamian economy that is off-limits to foreign ownership and investors.

“It must be made unequivocally clear,” he wrote. “Pablo’s involvement in this business is in direct contravention of Bahamian law. Conch & Coconut is a Bahamian company, and the operation of this business, particularly in the tourism sector, is explicitly reserved for Bahamians under our statutory and policy framework. The Government of The Bahamas has made this position abundantly clear, both to us and the relevant regulators.”

Mr Pickstock, who would have been a Senator when he wrote the e-mail, was subsequently elected to the House of Assembly in the Golden Isles by-election later that year. He then won the same seat in the May 12 general election, and has been appointed minister of state for Immigration in the second Davis administration’s Cabinet, which has seen him give up all private sector activity including representing Conch & Coconut and Mr Conde’s former Bahamian partner.

While the stipulation on 100 percent Bahamian ownership for businesses such as Conch & Coconut is not enshrined in statute law, but instead articulated in the National Investment Policy, Mr Conde’s involvement would nevertheless still need approval from government regulators such as the Investments Board and National Economic Council (NEC)

The e-mail was filed with the south Florida federal court last week as part of the ongoing legal battle sparked by the messy break-up between the US investor and Julian ‘Shaq’ Gibson, who ran the Harbour Island end of Conch & Coconut’s operations and has continued with the business following their split.

Mr Gibson disclosed the e-mail as part of evidence which, he asserts, shows Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien was hired to represent himself and Conch & Coconut - but not Mr Conde - in addressing the more than $1.2m in unpaid taxes owed to the Bahamian Public Treasury and Department of Inland Revenue. The “engagement letter” refers to the “temporary closure of the business and issues with the Department of Inland Revenue”.

However, Mr Conde, who controlled and oversaw the US side of Conch & Coconut’s operations prior to the break-up, is alleging that it was he who hired Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien - not Mr Gibson - to handle and resolve the situation with the Bahamian tax authorities.

But the latter, in a bid to counter this narrative, alleged in a June 11, 2026, affidavit: “As the engagement letter indicates, Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien was retained to represent me in connection with the temporary closure of Ltd’s business and issues with the Department of Inland Revenue.” Ltd refers to the Bahamian side of the Conch & Coconut operation, headed by Mr Gibson, while Conch & Coconut LLC was the US arm under Mr Conde’s control.

Mr Gibson, while conceding that Mr Conde and the US arm provided funding to pay the Bahamian law firm’s fees, said this was done because both sides would benefit from resolving the dispute with the Bahamian tax authorities.

“In 2023, Conch & Coconut LLC was doing business with Ltd and would benefit from resolution of the tax issues that were the subject of Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien’s representation of me,” Mr Gibson asserted. “LLC, therefore, wired funds to Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien. Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien, however, was my law firm and not LLC’s. That is why the engagement letter does not mention Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien.

“I understand that, in a declaration dated May 28, 2026, LLC’s managing member, Pablo Conde, states that, on May 8, 2023, and May 10, 2023, which was after Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien began representing me personally, the parties discussed the possibility of Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien representing LLC and me simultaneously in the tax issues with the Department of Inland Revenue.

“Although we discussed that possibility, I never agreed to such a joint representation, and in fact long after these discussions Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien continued to represent me against LLC… As these messages indicate, Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien was my law firm, not LLC’s.”

Mr Conde had alleged that a three-way conference call was held on May 8, 2023, which ultimately resulted in an agreement two days’ later “where the LLC and Gibson/Ltd were joint clients of Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien with respect to the tax matter, and Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien independently represented Gibson/Ltd with respect to any separation agreement. But for this agreement, I and the LLC would not have continued paying Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien for their legal services”.

The two former business partners are now battling over the production and disclosure of evidence to be presented before the south Florida federal court in just one of their several ongoing legal confrontations. A similar case is also before the Supreme Court in The Bahamas.

Mr Gibson is accusing his ex-US partner of failing to “account for hundreds of thousands of dollars” he received during their tie-up, while Mr Conde is claiming that his former Bahamian associate blocked a challenge to the amount of unpaid taxes claimed by the Department of Inland Revenue from Conch & Coconut’s Briland business.

“Phylese Hanna is an independent accountant in the Bahamas that the LLC hired to review the Bahamas Department of Internal Revenue’s conclusion as to Gibson’s tax debt on behalf of the LLC and Gibson/the LTD, and provide a recommended course of action for challenging same,” Mr Conde asserted in legal filings with the south Florida federal court on June 5, 2026.

“Ms Hanna was hired because of the Department of Internal Revenue’s finding that Gibson ‘blatantly flouted the tax laws’ and that he reported zero in taxable supplies in his returns despite the fact that he had almost $3m in taxable supplies at the time of the assessment….

“Her work showed that the money already paid to the Department of Internal Revenue already more than covered the correct amount of taxes that Gibson owed to the Department of Internal Revenue, and that the inflated assessment and the $320,000 in penalties levied against Gibson & the Ltd by the Department of Internal Revenue were due to his own transgressions,” Mr Conde continued.

“Despite the LLC paying for her work, and being willing to pay for her to make her proposal to the Department of Internal Revenue, Gibson refused to allow her to present the Department of Internal Revenue with her analysis and proposal. As a result, Ms Hanna’s work for the Ltd and the LLC ended.”

Mr Gibson, for his part, blasted Mr Conde’s failure to respond to his discovery requests. “As of today, LLC has not produced a single document to LTD despite seeking millions of dollars in damages through multiple claims against LTD,” he alleged.

“In the Bahamas, where LTD is located, ‘fronting’ is an illegal business scheme where a foreign company uses a Bahamian company or individual as its ‘public face’ to circumvent Bahamian ownership laws, which reserve certain businesses for locals.

“From 2018 to March 2023, plaintiff LLC (a US company) engaged in fronting by exploiting LTD (a Bahamian company) and its owner, defendant Gibson, to provide the day-to-day ‘concierge services’ that LLC marketed to visitors to The Bahamas. As a result, plaintiff LLC unlawfully collected millions of dollars,” Mr Gibson continued.

“Several of the in-dispute discovery requests concern LLC’s refusal to account for these improperly diverted funds. In fact, even since March 2023, when LLC purported to comply with Bahamian law, it refuses to account for hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly spent on ‘operational expenses’ that appear to have been distributed to LLC’s owner, his other companies, his family or his friends.”

Mr Conde countered that Mr Gibson is merely seeking documents to benefit the Supreme Court lawsuit he has initiated in The Bahamas. “This lawsuit is the long-term result of defendant Gibson’s failure to pay his tax debts.. and failing to account for his business’ cash receipts in The Bahamas, despite numerous reminders and demands from the LLC that Gibson attend to his Bahamian VAT taxes,” he alleged.

“Importantly, the LTD has raised no defences or counterclaims in this litigation, instead choosing to file a lawsuit in The Bahamas after this case was filed for home- town advantage. Defendants now seek to conduct discovery in this matter to benefit their claims in the Bahamian action, seeking information that is irrelevant and unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence to this lawsuit.”