You are on page 1of 80

INDEX NO.

150400/2015

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2015 10:12 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2015

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
LOUIS BACON,
Plaintiff,
- against -

Index No. 150400 / 2015

PETER NYGÅRD, NYGÅRD
INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, NYGÅRD
INC., and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
COUNTERCLAIMS AND ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS AND
COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS PETER NYGÅRD,
NYGÅRD INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, AND NYGÅRD INC.
Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Peter Nygård, Nygård International Partnership
and Nygård Inc. (together, the “Nygård Company”), for their counterclaims and answer to the
first amended complaint filed by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Louis Bacon, allege as
follows:
SUMMARY OF THE COUNTERCLAIMS AND ANSWER
1.

Peter Nygård has been a resident (and now a permanent resident) of The Bahamas

since the late 1970s, and in 1984 purchased the property at the western tip of The Bahamas
where he presently resides. For decades, Mr. Nygård, his neighbors, and native Bahamians lived
in peaceful harmony, sharing in Bahamian culture and ideals and enjoying many celebrations
together. In the early 2000s, however, hedge-fund billionaire Louis Bacon purchased an estate
that borders on Mr. Nygård’s property, and over the past ten years, Mr. Bacon has terrorized,
intimidated, and corrupted native Bahamians and Bahamian government officials, and has made
it his mission to destroy Mr. Nygård’s reputation and to cost Mr. Nygård as much money as he
can in the process. Mr. Bacon’s motivation has been clear from the beginning. To quote the

individual who originally approached Mr. Nygård about selling his property to Mr. Bacon: Mr.
Bacon would “one way or another” force Mr. Nygård to sell his Bahamian property to Mr.
Bacon. Mr. Bacon has waged war continuously against Mr. Nygård, and he has injected turmoil
and fear into the lives of Mr. Nygård and scores of native Bahamians.
2.

This action brought by Mr. Bacon is only a small piece of the years-long war (and

attempted land grab) he has been waging, and his complaint provides a highly inaccurate and
incomplete picture of what has transpired. Mr. Bacon has for years continuously harassed Mr.
Nygård and has interfered with his property rights and liberties. For example, Mr. Bacon had
installed on his own property military-grade speakers that were pointed at, and blared dangerous
and pain-inducing sound waves towards, Mr. Nygård’s home. Mr. Bacon would blast these
speakers at early morning hours or in the evening to interfere with a gathering or party on Mr.
Nygård’s property -- until the speakers were finally confiscated from Mr. Bacon’s estate by The
Bahamas police. On the roadway that crosses Mr. Bacon’s property, over which Mr. Nygård has
an indisputable easement, Mr. Bacon constructed a barrier gate, installed misleading signs and
several invasive cameras, and caused flooding at the entry to Mr. Nygård’s property -- all for the
purpose of interfering with Mr. Nygård’s and his guests’ (usually, native black Bahamians)
enjoyment of his property. And, there is also evidence (a witness who will testify), upon
information and belief, that an individual working for Mr. Bacon was involved in setting a fire
which resulted in the destruction of significant parts of Mr. Nygård’s Bahamian home.
3.

In addition to aggressive and possibly criminal direct acts against Mr. Nygård and

his property, Mr. Bacon has also initiated numerous frivolous lawsuits in The Bahamas against
Mr. Nygård and several Bahamian government officials. For example, Mr. Bacon has filed one
lawsuit after another against Mr. Nygård and various Bahamian government officials challenging

2

permits issued to Mr. Nygård to allow him to rebuild his home following the fire and to perform
maintenance work as to his property’s beachfront. Mr. Bacon has made brazen and unsupported
allegations of corruption against the current Bahamian government (led by the Progressive
Liberal Party, or “PLP”) because it defeated the party in The Bahamas (the Free National
Movement, or “FNM”) that, upon information and belief, Mr. Bacon supports.
4.

Mr. Bacon is a serial litigator, particularly in The Bahamas. In addition to the

several cases through which he seeks to interfere with Mr. Nygård’s property rights, Mr. Bacon
has also brought other lawsuits in The Bahamas courts (against news reporters, television show
hosts, etc.) complaining about the same protests and videos that are the subject of his complaint
in this action -- demonstrations by Bahamian citizens that accuse Mr. Bacon of stealing credit for
charitable work performed by dedicated Bahamian citizens (and not him) and of racism in
connection with the same. Through his several acts of taking credit for that which he did not do,
and of deception and corruption, Mr. Bacon has brought these reactions upon himself. He has no
actionable claims.
5.

The videos and protests against Mr. Bacon were in response to his taking credit

for -- and his seemingly racist commentary in connection with -- the preservation of Clifton, a
historic area in The Bahamas. Clifton is a sacred site to native black Bahamians, as it was a
significant landing point for the Atlantic slave trade during the 18th and 19th centuries. In the late
1990s, before Mr. Bacon even purchased his estate in The Bahamas, a grassroots group named
“Save Clifton” was organized by local black Bahamians to prevent development of Clifton for
commercial purposes and to preserve public access to Clifton. For several years, Save Clifton,
led by Keod Smith and several other Bahamians, lobbied Parliament and took other actions, until
Clifton Heritage National Park was established and the historic site preserved.

3

6.

In 2013, Mr. Bacon was “honored” by the Audubon Society supposedly for his

work to preserve Clifton. A video tribute played during the ceremony and still available on Mr.
Bacon’s website falsely credits Mr. Bacon for, among other things, “singlehandedly” saving
Clifton. Further, in his speech accepting the Audubon award, Mr. Bacon quoted gallingly from
what he referred to as his “Holy Book” -- Gone With The Wind. Gone With The Wind is widely
viewed as a novel that reveres racists, derides African-Americans, and romanticizes slavery and
the Ku Klux Klan. This disingenuous award ceremony and the racist undertones of the
acceptance speech, coming from Mr. Bacon, a North Carolina-native with a family history of
plantation ownership and Ku Klux Klan leadership, was particularly inflammatory to native
black Bahamians.
7.

The reaction to the Audubon ceremony was swift. A Bahamian journalist who

participated in the fight to save Clifton wrote soon after the award ceremony: “I cannot recall
Mr. Bacon’s name ever surfacing as a leader of the Save Clifton Coalition . . . [his] claim
denigrates the work” of the Bahamians who led the fight. Members of The Bahamas community
came to Mr. Nygård to seek his help in correcting the record and registering their protests to
what they perceived as Mr. Bacon's blatant racist remarks. Videos that highlighted the
disingenuous claims made regarding Clifton and that depicted the racism of Mr. Bacon’s
forefathers appeared on YouTube. Anti-Bacon and anti-racist protests and marches occurred,
showing the strength of the Bahamian people and their unwillingness to be mistreated by a
foreigner.
8.

Being charged with racist conduct is familiar territory for Mr. Bacon. In 2008,

Mr. Bacon’s hedge fund, Moore Capital Management (“Moore Capital”), was sued by the firm’s
only female African-American employee, Juliette Pierre, for race discrimination, after the New

4

York State Division of Human Rights had determined that there was probable cause to believe
that Mr. Bacon’s firm had engaged in discriminatory practices against Ms. Pierre. In her federal
court complaint against Moore Capital, Ms. Pierre alleged that the racially discriminatory
practices against her were “consistent with the poor diversity employment practices of MOORE,
which promotes and advances its non-diverse work environment, including but not limited to
refusing to hire African American[s] . . . and/or cleansing its workforce of existing African
American[s] . . . through discrimination and retaliation.” Within months of Ms. Pierre initiating
her race discrimination suit, and before the firm would have been compelled to answer Ms.
Pierre’s detailed and incriminating allegations, Moore Capital entered into a confidential
settlement for an undisclosed sum to resolve the case.
9.

Mr. Nygård’s support of the native black Bahamians, his friends of more than

thirty years, in protesting against Mr. Bacon’s misconduct was no secret. In fact, in May 2013,
Mr. Nygård appeared on a national television show in The Bahamas, The Platform, during which
he showed an anti-Bacon video he helped create, The 5 Lies of Bacon, and talked about Mr.
Bacon’s various unlawful acts as well as the disingenuous Audubon ceremony. Mr. Nygård
further challenged Mr. Bacon to come on to the show -- an offer Mr. Bacon never accepted.
10.

In 2014, Mr. Bacon brought his war against Mr. Nygård to the United States with

his commencement of a Section 1782 proceeding that sought discovery of numerous videotapes
possessed by a disgruntled videographer who formerly had done work for Mr. Nygård. In
connection with the 1782 proceeding before Federal Judge Denise Cote, Mr. Bacon committed
various acts of misconduct, including submitting into the public record various false, salacious
and completely irrelevant allegations about Mr. Nygård. Judge Cote ordered Mr. Bacon’s
counsel to redact these highly improper statements from the record, but they had already been

5

made public and the damage had already been done. Mr. Bacon made further false and
unsupported allegations concerning corruption within the current Bahamian government, and
submitted to the court purported minutes from a confidential Bahamian government meeting,
minutes which appear to be falsified (a criminal act in The Bahamas).
11.

Now, Mr. Bacon comes to this Court -- notwithstanding its utter lack of nexus to

the campaign that Mr. Bacon has waged against Mr. Nygård and other Bahamians -- to
maliciously pursue defamation-type claims against Mr. Nygård. Mr. Bacon has no actionable
claim against Mr. Nygård or anyone else. Rather, it is Mr. Nygård and the people of The
Bahamas who have been attacked by Mr. Bacon and who are entitled to redress. In this spirit,
Mr. Nygård asserts the counterclaims set forth herein to permit this Court to reach a just result.
BACKGROUND
I.

Peter Nygård and the Nygård Company
12.

Mr. Nygård is the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and founder of the Nygård

Company. The Nygård Company is a multi-national, leading designer, manufacturer, wholesaler
and retailer of women’s apparel operating primarily in Canada with offices worldwide. The
company is responsible directly and indirectly for 12,000 jobs and supplies its clothing lines to
more than 200 retail stores in North America.
13.

Mr. Nygård’s life and career is a classic rags-to-riches story. Mr. Nygård

immigrated to Winnipeg, Canada from Helsinki, Finland in the 1950s. As an immigrant family
that spoke no English when they arrived, the Nygårds were forced to live in a converted coal bin
with no electricity or running water when Mr. Nygård was a child. From these humble
beginnings, Mr. Nygård took out an $8,000 loan in 1967 and purchased a stake in a women’s
clothing manufacturer. Through tireless work and keen business savvy, Mr. Nygård built the
Nygård Company, which today has annual sales in excess of $500 million.
6

14.

Mr. Nygård has not forgotten where he came from. In the last ten years he has

donated over $10 million to various charities, supporting causes ranging from women’s health
initiatives to children’s education. His and his company’s charitable platform, Nygård for Life,
focuses primarily on research to eradicate breast cancer and quality of life initiatives for breast
cancer patients around the world. The Nygård Company and Mr. Nygård also operate bio-tech
ventures concerning anti-aging and stem-cell research.
II.
15.

Peter Nygård -- A Bahamian For Over 35 Years
Mr. Nygård first purchased a home in The Bahamas in the late 1970s. Mr.

Nygård purchased the property where he resides, now known as Nygård Cay, on December 4,
1984. Nygård Cay is surrounded by water on three sides and encompasses the western tip of the
residential community known as Lyford Cay on the island of New Providence, the most
populous island in The Bahamas. Mr. Nygård spent years building his dream home, and Nygård
Cay has become a destination for celebrities, royalty and luminaries, including President George
H.W. Bush, Sean Connery, and Robert DeNiro.
16.

Mr. Nygård felt such a connection with the island and so welcomed by the

Bahamian people that he became a permanent resident on September 26, 1986. Although Mr.
Nygård has other residential properties and travels frequently to oversee his many business
interests, he considers The Bahamas his home. Over the decades, Mr. Nygård has hosted many
celebrations and parties at Nygård Cay, for family, dignitaries and friends, including many
members of the local Bahamian community. As a pillar of the community there, Mr. Nygård has
donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bahamian churches, organizations, and charitable
causes. The Bahamian relay team that won a gold medal in track at the London 2012 Olympics
credits Mr. Nygård’s support of the team and of Bahamian sports in general as a significant
contributor to their success.
7

III.
17.

The Movement to Save Clifton
Nygård Cay is situated just north of an area called Clifton, comprised of an inlet

that creates a bay and a large public beach called Jaws Beach. Clifton is historically important to
native Bahamians. In the 18th and 19th centuries, southern-style plantations were established in
Clifton and were supplied with slaves by the Atlantic slave trade. These slaves arrived in The
Bahamas via Clifton Point. To this day, portions of the plantation houses and slave quarters
remain standing in Clifton. A contingent of native Bahamians have long sought to preserve
Clifton in order to properly honor their ancestors and to ensure that their history is never
forgotten.
18.

Native Bahamians are also motivated by the desire to have public access to their

beaches, as large portions of Bahamian coastline have been overtaken by private development
from foreign interests. Jaws Beach is one of the largest public beaches open to Bahamians. In
the 1990s, American real estate development companies eyed Jaws Beach and adjacent areas as a
target for developing private resorts. By 1998, plans were in the works for a $400 million real
estate development that would have overrun Clifton and privatized Jaws Beach.
19.

These issues prompted a grassroots movement by native Bahamians to preserve

Clifton. In 1999, after plans for the resort development became known, Keod Smith, an attorney
from Nassau, helped organize and became the leader of Save Clifton. Save Clifton was a multifaceted movement to prevent the private development on Jaws Beach and adjacent areas and to
preserve for all Bahamians both the history of and public access to Clifton. The movement
included The Clifton Cay Coalition, the Clifton Park Committee, Vivian Whylly (a descendant
of a slave from the Whylly Plantation on Clifton), and current Prime Minister Perry Christie. In
2000, when Prime Minister Christie was the opposition leader of the PLP, he made a public
commitment to create a national park at Clifton Bay if and when the PLP returned to power.
8

Shortly thereafter, and likely as a direct result of Prime Minister Christie’s public commitment,
the residential developer withdrew its pursuit of a project in Clifton, increasing the likelihood
that Clifton would be preserved.
20.

Prime Minister Christie was voted into office for the first time in 2002, and he

made good on his promise. Under his direction, the Bahamian Parliament moved to create the
Clifton Heritage Authority, which was charged with responsibility for the 208 acres of land that
comprise Clifton and contain some of the most important historical artifacts in The Bahamas.
But even with the creation of the Clifton Heritage Authority, the process of ensuring that Clifton
was permanently protected from the influence of outsiders was not complete. Save Clifton
continued its daily work to preserve Bahamian history until April 9, 2009, when the Clifton
Heritage National Park officially opened after nearly a decade of tireless efforts by Mr. Smith
and his fellow Bahamians.
IV.
21.

Louis Bacon
Louis Bacon is the billionaire founder of Moore Capital Management, a New

York City-based hedge fund. Mr. Bacon is the descendent of wealthy southern plantation
owners, and founded Moore Capital Management using money that he inherited from his mother.
He is an avowed Republican who donated nearly a million dollars to Republican efforts in the
2012 Presidential elections.
V.
22.

Bacon Purchases Property Next to Nygård Cay and Starts Feud
Mr. Bacon purchased an estate property in The Bahamas in the early 2000s, after

the Save Clifton movement began. He purchased the Point House estate within the Lyford Cay
enclave, which borders Nygård Cay to the east. At first, Mr. Bacon and Mr. Nygård had a
cordial relationship as neighbors. They visited and entertained each other at their respective
homes. Mr. Nygård had long maintained an excellent relationship with the Lyford Cay
9

homeowners association and the other residents of Lyford Cay, many of whom he hosted for
social events at Nygård Cay. Mr. Nygård’s welcoming attitude extended to Mr. Bacon’s
employees as well. One Bacon employee in particular, Dan Tuckfield, attended functions at
Nygård Cay on a regular basis. Tuckfield functioned as the property manager for Mr. Bacon’s
Point House estate, and took advantage of his open invitation to Nygård Cay to attend numerous
gatherings.
23.

However, in June 2004, a female guest at Nygård Cay accused Tuckfield of

inappropriate and aggressive sexual advances. Upon hearing of this transgression and out of
concern for protecting his other female guests, Mr. Nygård banned Tuckfield from Nygård Cay.
Tuckfield did not comply with Mr. Nygård’s request and Mr. Nygård was forced to have a fence
erected around Nygård Cay to prevent Mr. Bacon’s employee from entering Nygård Cay.
Nevertheless, Tuckfield, on a number of occasions, circumvented these barriers, entered Nygård
Cay, and, in an inebriated state, engaged in physical confrontations with Mr. Nygård, his guests,
and his security personnel.
24.

Soon after the relationship between Mr. Nygård and Tuckfield soured, an

individual who purported to represent Mr. Bacon approached Mr. Nygård and offered to
purchase Nygård Cay. Mr. Nygård declined the offer, and the individual stated that Mr. Bacon
would acquire the property “one way or another.” This was the first hint of the years of strife
that Mr. Nygård would endure for refusing to give in to Mr. Bacon. Relations between Mr.
Nygård and Mr. Bacon remained strained through the fall of 2009.
VI.
25.

A Fire of Mysterious Origin Destroys Portions of Nygård Cay
Tuckfield befriended and had numerous conversations with Vivian Whylly (the

aforementioned Save Clifton activist). Tuckfield explained to Mr. Whylly that Mr. Bacon had an
intense dislike for Mr. Nygård and that Mr. Bacon would obtain Mr. Nygård’s property one way
10

or another. In the Fall of 2009, Tuckfield further told Mr. Whylly to “watch what is going to
happen.” At or about that time, Tuckfield had also confronted an employee of Mr. Nygård and
told Mr. Nygård’s employee that Mr. Bacon had ordered him “to find a way to burn Mr.
Nygård’s ‘****ing house’ down.”
26.

Shortly thereafter, on November 11, 2009, Nygård Cay was beset by an enormous

fire that caused millions of dollars in damage to Mr. Nygård’s home. The cause of the fire
remains unknown. Upon information and belief, fire trucks were delayed for twenty minutes to
enter Nygård Cay, because they could not get past a gate on the private road controlled by Mr.
Bacon’s employees. A few weeks after the fire, Tuckfield had yet another conversation with Mr.
Whylly and said to him, “see what I told you.”
27.

While Mr. Nygård suspected that Tuckfield, at Mr. Bacon’s urging, was involved

with setting the fire, Mr. Nygård was denied the opportunity to have his lawyers question
Tuckfield about it. Less than six months after the fire, Tuckfield was found dead, floating in the
pool at Mr. Bacon’s Point House estate. Tuckfield’s watery death on Mr. Bacon’s property was
particularly suspicious given that he was an expert swimmer who had previously survived a
plane crash in the ocean, miles offshore. Upon information and belief, Tuckfield’s body was
cremated before there was an opportunity to perform an autopsy and determine a cause of death.
28.

The November 2009 fire destroyed or otherwise caused damage to substantial

portions of Nygård Cay. Mr. Nygård has since continuously sought permits from the
government to rebuild the damaged structures. However, Mr. Bacon has opposed and interfered
with Mr. Nygård’s efforts at every turn.
VII.
29.

A Tumultuous Period for Mr. Bacon
Mr. Bacon’s aggressive assault on Mr. Nygård occurred in the midst of a very

difficult stretch for Mr. Bacon’s business and otherwise. As the credit crisis continued through
11

2009, Mr. Bacon’s hedge fund Moore Capital lost investors who pulled money from Moore’s
funds. As the financial crisis appeared to be coming to an end in 2010, Mr. Bacon’s troubles
only worsened. On March 23, 2010 Julian Rifat (“Rifat”), an employee of Moore Capital, was
arrested for insider trading. Rifat was an execution trader in the London office of Moore Capital.
In November 2014, Rifat pleaded guilty to insider trading charges, and in March 2015, Rifat was
sentenced to a 19-month jail term.
30.

Moore Capital had other regulatory issues pertaining to illegal activity. Shortly

after Rifat was arrested for insider trading, Moore Capital was forced to reach a settlement with
the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) for unlawfully fixing the prices of
platinum and palladium. On April 29, 2010, the CFTC issued an order that filed and settled
charges that Moore Capital and related entities attempted to manipulate the settlement prices of
platinum and palladium futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Moore Capital
was also charged with failing to diligently supervise the handling of its commodity interest
business. The order required Moore Capital and related entities to pay a $25 million penalty and
restricted their registration for three years and their commodities trading for two years. In 2013,
Moore Capital reached a settlement and paid platinum and palladium investors over $48 million
based on the same misconduct.
31.

The United States Justice Department announced in November 2014 that it was

investigating allegations that an employee of Moore Capital in March 2010 received and traded
on confidential information leaked by an employee of HSBC Holdings PLC. A senior HSBC
trader allegedly alerted a trader at Moore Capital about an impending currency exchange
transaction, allowing the traders to illegally time their transactions and to maximize their profits.
The criminal investigation into this alleged leak of market-moving information is ongoing.

12

32.

Moore Capital faced (and faces) other lawsuits stemming from conduct relating to

the 2010 time period and earlier, including an alleged $350 million suit by insurer AIG relating
to mortgage-backed securities created at Moore Capital’s behest.
VIII. Race Discrimination at Moore Capital Management
33.

Troubles for Mr. Bacon and Moore Capital were not limited to the firm’s trading

activity. In February 2007, the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”)
determined that Moore Capital had engaged in discriminatory practices against employee Juliette
Pierre.
34.

Ms. Pierre was a data analyst in Moore Capital’s New York office, the firm’s

principal place of business. She began working at Moore Capital in September 1989, when the
firm was relatively new and, upon information and belief, was the firm’s only African American
female employee during her 16-year employment history.
35.

In 2004 and early 2005, Ms. Pierre complained to her supervisors at Moore

Capital regarding various forms of discriminatory conduct aimed at her. Upon information and
belief, Ms. Pierre’s concerns and complaints were ignored by her supervisors. On March 28,
2005, Ms. Pierre was forced to file a complaint with NYSDHR alleging discrimination.
36.

According to Ms. Pierre, after she filed her complaint with NYSDHR, Moore

Capital “immediately began a campaign of harassment, abuse, false accusations, character
assassination, and other harmful treatment against [her].” In September 2005, five months after
Ms. Pierre filed her NYSDHR complaint and after 16 years of employment at Moore Capital,
Ms. Pierre was summarily terminated.
37.

After being terminated, Ms. Pierre amended her NYSDHR charge to also include

a charge of retaliation for Moore Capital’s abusive actions following her filing of the initial
NYSDHR complaint. On February 15, 2007, the NYSHDR determined in a 16-page single13

spaced decision that there is probable cause to believe that Moore Capital engaged in
discriminatory practices against Ms. Pierre. Thereafter, Moore Capital submitted an application
to the NYSDHR seeking reconsideration of the February 17, 2007 discrimination determination.
On December 17, 2007, the NYSDHR denied Moore Capital’s application. On February 11,
2008, the NYSDHR and the EEOC granted Ms. Pierre permission to pursue her discrimination
action against Moore Capital in federal court.
38.

On April 30, 2008, Ms. Pierre filed her discrimination action against Moore

Capital in federal court (SDNY), seeking compensatory damages, pain and suffering, and
punitive damages totaling $17 million. In her federal complaint against Moore Capital, Ms.
Pierre alleged that the racially discriminatory practices against her were “consistent with the poor
diversity employment practices of MOORE, which promotes and advances its non-diverse work
environment, including but not limited to refusing to hire African American[s] . . . and/or
cleansing its workforce of existing African American[s] . . . through discrimination and
retaliation.”
39.

Within weeks of Ms. Pierre’s complaint being filed, Moore Capital succumbed

and entered into a confidential settlement with Ms. Pierre for an undisclosed sum. The
settlement was reached before Moore Capital was compelled to answer (admit or deny) Ms.
Pierre’s detailed and incriminating allegations of institutional racism.
IX.
40.

Mr. Bacon’s Continuous Harassment of Mr. Nygård
Mr. Bacon’s troubles at Moore Capital did not cause him to pause from his efforts

to drive Mr. Nygård from Nygård Cay. During 2010, Mr. Bacon had installed on his Point
House property military-grade speakers -- that are capable of causing physical and emotional
harm -- which he had aimed at Mr. Nygård’s property and home. On several occasions, at early
hours in the morning and at late hours at night, Mr. Bacon blared ear-piercing noises through the
14

speakers to harass and unnerve Mr. Nygård and his guests. This happened on a number of
occasions until July 26, 2010, when the Bahamian police raided Mr. Bacon’s compound, and
confiscated four large, military-grade speakers that were pointed at Nygård Cay.
41.

Mr. Bacon has also used Point House’s location on the private road leading to

Nygård Cay to harass Mr. Nygård and his guests. Mr. Nygård has an easement that permits
travel across Mr. Bacon’s Point House property on a private road to enter Nygård Cay. Mr.
Nygård frequently entertains at Nygård Cay. For the sole purpose of harassing Mr. Nygård and
his guests (Mr. Nygård’s guests predominantly are local black Bahamians): Mr. Bacon illegally
built, without a permit and in violation of Mr. Nygård’s easement, a gate that blocked the private
road (in particular, on the day of the fire in 2009); performed construction work which
unlawfully diverted the easement road from its original route but was fraudulently concealed by
such construction activity until discovered by Mr. Nygård’s review of a survey; frequently
directed his guards to prevent Mr. Nygård and his guests from entering Nygård Cay; changed the
grade of the road to cause rainwater to pool in front of the entrance gate to Nygård Cay; placed
intentionally misleading signs on the road to Nygård Cay, including “Private Property” and “No
Turn Around” signs that confused and discouraged many of Mr. Nygård’s guests; and installed
several cameras on the road that are intimidating and invasive. When two of Mr. Nygård’s
employees attempted to erect a sign that would direct visitors to the property, Mr. Bacon’s
employees physically prevented them from doing so and reported them to the police for allegedly
damaging Mr. Bacon’s property while putting up the sign.
42.

Mr. Bacon has made it clear that he intends to make Mr. Nygård’s life so

miserable that he would flee The Bahamas and sell Nygård Cay to Mr. Bacon -- to accomplish
Mr. Bacon’s goal of owning the entire western tip of Lyford Cay. In order to divert attention

15

from his devious purpose and to give himself positive publicity, Mr. Bacon formed a coalition
called Save The Bays that was committed to “preserving and protecting Clifton Bay.” Of course,
Clifton had already been preserved and protected by the grassroots Save Clifton movement and
other dedicated Bahamians. In reality, Save The Bays was little more than a front to disguise
Mr. Bacon’s anti-Nygård activities, and Save The Bays immediately began focusing its efforts
on preventing Mr. Nygård from reconstructing Nygård Cay following the 2009 fire by filing a
number of lawsuits that attempted to prevent Mr. Nygård from performing any construction work
on his property.
X.
43.

A Canadian Television Program Defamatory to Mr. Nygård Has Mr. Bacon’s
Fingerprints On It
In addition to these direct attempts to harass Mr. Nygård in The Bahamas, upon

information and belief, Mr. Bacon was also indirectly responsible for a defamatory television
program about Mr. Nygård that aired on the Canadian Broadcasting Company (the “CBC”). The
CBC broadcast contained a number of defamatory, false, and malicious claims against Mr.
Nygård made by former employees Michelle and Alan May.
44.

According to an investigator hired by Mr. Nygård, the Mays -- who only worked

for Mr. Nygård for a brief time before being fired for theft of property -- were paid substantial
sums of cash by Mr. Bacon (as he has done with others who agree to cooperate against Mr.
Nygård) to give statements to the CBC that were false and defamatory. Among other things, the
Mays, who have criminal records and histories of fraudulent conduct, including having falsified
their employment applications to Mr. Nygård, made egregiously false statements in the broadcast
that Mr. Nygård had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with respect to an underage
Dominican woman who stayed at Nygård Cay. The statements were malicious and false, as Mr.
Nygård and the woman would attest. In fact, before the show aired, the program's producers,
16

who were, upon information and belief, working with Mr. Bacon’s representatives, were
provided the opportunity to speak with the woman about the Mays’ statements, but passed up the
opportunity in order to remain willfully blind to the truth.
45.

Also, upon information and belief, individuals retained by Mr. Bacon made

efforts to procure false statements from a number of women, including made-up stories about
purported sexual improprieties, in exchange for thousands of dollars. Upon information and
belief, Mr. Bacon and his agents also attempted to convince numerous associates of Mr. Nygård
to make false and defamatory statements about him on record to the CBC, but they refused.
Even so, the CBC broadcast was damaging to Mr. Nygård and the Nygård Company and
contained false and defamatory statements, so much so that it has been removed from the
internet.
XI.
46.

Mr. Bacon’s Audubon Award: A False Premise and Racist Undertones
Through his secretive and controversial hedge fund Moore Capital, Mr. Bacon has

accumulated massive wealth -- a net worth of billions of dollars according to various media
sources. As is common for billionaires in the United States, various charitable organizations
have bestowed “honors” upon Mr. Bacon, with the hope that he would donate or raise significant
funds for their causes. In 2013, the Audubon Society named Mr. Bacon the recipient of their
Audubon Medal, which previously had been given to several other billionaires. In connection
with his receipt of the Audubon Medal, Mr. Bacon pledged a large monetary gift to fund the
building of a new resource center for the Audubon Society.
47.

Mr. Bacon was feted during the Audubon annual gala on January 17, 2013. A

video tribute to Mr. Bacon shown during the gala focused on Mr. Bacon’s supposed
accomplishments, particularly as they applied to saving Clifton. In the video tribute, Robert
Kennedy, Jr. explains that Mr. Bacon “singlehandedly decided to stand up and to save [Clifton]
17

on behalf of the Bahamian public . . . and today, as a result of his work, Clifton Cay is a national
park and it is protected forever on behalf of the people of The Bahamas . . . .” Various of
Kennedy’s statements in this video are patently false, as Mr. Bacon had little to do with
preserving Clifton, much less was the saving of Clifton something that Mr. Bacon
singlehandedly accomplished. Nevertheless, this video, insulting to all Bahamians involved in
the Save Clifton movement, remains available today for viewing on Moore Capital’s charity
website.
48.

Mr. Bacon’s acceptance speech during the gala was also offensive to black

Bahamians. During his speech, Mr. Bacon quoted from what he dubbed his “Holy Book” -Gone with the Wind. Gone with the Wind is widely viewed as a book that reveres racists and
racism, derides African Americans, and provides a romanticized view of slavery and the Ku
Klux Klan. Given the false credit that Mr. Bacon received and accepted for preserving Clifton, a
historic slave site, his reference to Gone with the Wind as his “Holy Book” was particularly
upsetting to black Bahamians.
49.

In his speech, Mr. Bacon also spoke about his recent purchase and restoration of

Orton Plantation. Orton Plantation is a large southern estate in North Carolina that was built by
Roger Moore -- Bacon’s ancestor -- in the early 1700s. Roger Moore owned hundreds of slaves
to work his fields and maintain his household. Roger Moore’s grandson, Roger B. Moore, was
an officer of the Confederate Army and Chief of the Ku Klux Klan in Wilmington who led the
mass murder of African Americans during the Wilmington Massacre of 1898. At least 15 and as
many as 60 African Americans were murdered when a mob of white men attacked an African
American-owned newspaper. Roger B. Moore’s involvement as the leader of the mob is
confirmed by numerous historical accounts, including a letter from Roger B. Moore’s wife.

18

Mr. Bacon named Moore Capital and the Moore Charitable Foundation after his forefathers. Mr.
Bacon purchased Orton Plantation for $45 million in May 2010 and immediately closed the
formerly public site for restoration to bring back its “cultural” history.
50.

Mr. Bacon again referred to a quote from Gone With The Wind as summing up his

own personal philosophy: “land is the only thing in the world worth working for, worth fighting
for, worth dying for . . . .” Mr. Bacon certainly has clung to this philosophy with his efforts to
force Mr. Nygård to sell his Bahamas property to him.
XII.
51.

The “5 Lies of Bacon” Video and Other Demonstrations Against Mr. Bacon
The reaction to the Audubon ceremony and Mr. Bacon’s speech was swift.

Native Bahamians, including those involved in the Save Clifton movement, spoke out and
questioned the merit of Mr. Bacon’s award. Nicki Kelly, a Bahamian journalist who closely
followed and reported on the fight to save Clifton wrote about Mr. Bacon’s speech in a February
11, 2013 column in The Punch, a Bahamian newspaper. “Having been among the activists
fighting to save Clifton, and having written numerous columns on the subject, I cannot recall Mr.
Bacon’s name ever surfacing as a leader of the Save Clifton Coalition,” she wrote. She further
wrote that “[Bacon’s] claim denigrates the work of those Bahamians” involved in the Save
Clifton movement. Local members of the community also asked Mr. Nygård to help them set
the record straight about Clifton Bay and to show their protest over what they perceived as Mr.
Bacon’s blatant racist remarks.
52.

Videos were posted on YouTube that highlighted the false statements of Mr.

Bacon and his supporters and addressed the undertones of racism from Mr. Bacon’s speech. One
such video, the creation of which was supported by Mr. Nygård, was called the “5 Lies of Louis
Bacon.”

19

53.

The “5 Lies” video explains five different falsehoods represented by Mr. Bacon

and his supporters in connection with the Audubon ceremony. The first falsehood was spoken
by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who stated in the video tribute to Mr. Bacon that “Louis [Bacon]
really singlehandedly decided to stand up and save that beach on behalf of the Bahamian Public.”
As noted above, that is a completely inaccurate representation of who was responsible for the
movement to preserve Clifton. The second falsehood relates to a photo from the video, which
supposedly was a view of Clifton. Instead, the photo showed Fowl Cay Island, a private island
with villas available to rent for as much as $25,000 a week. Clifton, in contrast, has been
damaged by industrial development and releases from oil tankers. The third falsehood is also
attributed to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who stated that the Clifton development was going to be “a
high-intensity development that would shut off the beach from the…tens of thousands of native
Bahamians who use that beach.” Instead, the 5 Lies video reveals that native Bahamians have
been barred from the beach since Mr. Bacon arrived to The Bahamas in the early 2000s. The
fourth falsehood, again with Mr. Kennedy as the mouthpiece, was that the development at
Clifton would have “destroyed probably one of the best-known coral reefs in the world.” In fact,
the coral reefs at Clifton have largely been destroyed by oil and other industrial pollutants.
Moreover, the “best-known coral” reef in The Bahamas is at Goulding Cay, miles away from
Clifton. Finally, the video takes issue with Mr. Kennedy’s assertion that Clifton is “protected
forever on behalf of…the birds [and] the wildlife.” But, as the 5 Lies video points out, Clifton is
not and was not a wildlife sanctuary. With the exception of the historical sites and the public
beach, Clifton is primarily industrial. The main point of Save Clifton, which was organized by
native Bahamians, was to preserve for their homeland a key site where slaves were brought to

20

this hemisphere from Africa. That fact could only be lost on someone with no involvement
whatsoever in the preservation of Clifton.
54.

The “5 Lies of Louis Bacon” video further communicates and provides context

for the level of anger that Mr. Bacon’s misappropriation of credit stirred in the Bahamian
community. It provides a synopsis of the Save Clifton movement and shows speeches following
the Audubon ceremony by community leaders including Vivian Whylly and Keod Smith. In
those speeches, Mr. Whylly and Mr. Smith call Mr. Bacon a liar for claiming that he led the Save
Clifton movement. The end of the video references the history of Mr. Bacon’s ancestry and
refers to the insider trading investigation at Moore Capital Management, as discussed supra.
55.

Mr. Bacon’s assertion that Mr. Nygård has been secretly behind this video and the

Anti-Bacon movement is absurd. Mr. Nygård’s involvement has been no secret. Since Mr.
Bacon started the feud between himself and Mr. Nygård, Mr. Nygård has publicly and openly
spoken about Mr. Bacon’s harassment and disingenuous claims many times. One such
discussion occurred when Mr. Nygård appeared on Wendell Jones’s Bahamian national
television show The Platform on May 20, 2013, referenced in Mr. Bacon’s complaint. Mr.
Nygård outlined in detail the feud that Mr. Bacon started, including the inappropriate sexual
behavior by Dan Tuckfield, Mr. Bacon interfering with Mr. Nygård’s easement, and the military
speakers Mr. Bacon installed. As the interview continued, Mr. Nygård not only discussed each
of the falsehoods in the “5 Lies of Bacon” video, but also stated that that he developed the video
in order to properly inform the Bahamian people of Mr. Bacon’s deceitfulness. Indeed, Wendell
Jones, the show’s host, and Mr. Nygård watched the video on air and then discussed it in detail.
Moreover, the speeches in the “5 Lies” video by Keod Smith and Vivian Whylly very clearly
take place at Nygård Cay. At the end of the Platform segment, Mr. Nygård challenged Mr.

21

Bacon to come on the show and said that he would match any donation by Mr. Bacon for the
benefit of Clifton. Mr. Bacon did not accept this challenge.
56.

In addition to Mr. Nygård publicly speaking out against Mr. Bacon, Anti-Bacon

protests and marches took place in The Bahamas, showing again the ability of the Bahamian
people to display their unwillingness to bend to the whims of foreigners. During the protests,
native Bahamians decried Mr. Bacon’s misrepresentation of his role in saving Clifton and his
insulting comments towards Bahamians and carried signs that outlined the links of Mr. Bacon’s
ancestors to slave ownership and the Ku Klux Klan.
57.

In many ways, the anti-Bacon demonstrations mirrored the action to Save Clifton

from a decade earlier -- a grassroots movement of native Bahamians, aimed at ensuring
foreigners did not negate their history. This time, instead of a real estate development company,
the enemy was an outsider who misrepresented his role in preserving Bahamian history and
deeply offended the populace of The Bahamas while doing so.
XIII. Bacon Lashes Out
58.

Once Mr. Bacon realized that public sentiment in The Bahamas had turned

against him following the Audubon ceremony, he desperately lashed out against everyone who
even mentioned his name. He turned up the intensity in his efforts to identify and sue everyone
who was even tangentially related to the Anti-Bacon movement. Mr. Bacon filed defamation
actions in The Bahamas against Earlin Williams, Wendell Jones, Sherman Brown, Steve
McKinney, and others -- newspaper reporters, television personalities and attorneys.
59.

Additionally, in the last two years Mr. Bacon has filed several separate Judicial

Review actions in The Bahamas in an attempt to halt construction on and around Nygård Cay
and stop Mr. Nygård from being able to rebuild his property from the 2009 fire. In these
lawsuits, Mr. Bacon has named as defendants current Prime Minister Perry Christie, the Deputy
22

Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and Aviation, the Director of Physical Planning, and
the Town Planning Committee, and has alleged that they all corruptly granted permits to Mr.
Nygård. 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.
60.

Mr. Bacon attempted to quell the movement against him by publishing open

letters to the Bahamian people in local newspapers and on his Save The Bays website. He
published the first open letter on April 19, 2013. In it, Mr. Bacon either confirms or does not
deny the majority of the allegations leveled against him in the videos and demonstrations. First,
Mr. Bacon retreated from the assertion during the Audubon ceremony that he led the fight to
save Clifton, and belatedly gives credit to Prime Minister Christie and other community leaders.
61.

Mr. Bacon also confirmed that he made changes to the roadway between his own

house and Nygård Cay and that the Bahamian police raided his house to confiscate his militarygrade speakers. But Mr. Bacon again attempted to distort the real issue. After admitting that
Bahamian police raided his home in search of those speakers, he spent hundreds of words
discussing their photographing the crime scene (which allegedly included his children’s
bedrooms) so the photos could be “forwarded to some pedophile ring.” Like the “Smear
Campaign” and Mr. Nygård’s allegedly vital role in it, this is yet another example of a wild
fantasy conjured up by Mr. Bacon with no basis in reality in order to explain what he perceives
as unjust attacks on his character.
62.

Mr. Bacon published his second open letter on August 9, 2013. It again attempted

to deflect and explain criticism that Mr. Bacon felt had been unjustly placed upon him.
However, the tone was even more accusatory than his prior open letter. In addition to calling

23

Mr. Nygård a liar multiple times, Mr. Bacon also resorted to juvenile name-calling, referring to
Mr. Nygård as “Peter Pinocchio” and “Pinocchio Nygård the Narcissist.” Like in his prior public
statements, Mr. Bacon denied that he is a racist, but did not deny that his forefathers were slaveowners and Ku Klux Klan members. Mr. Bacon’s second open letter accuses Mr. Nygård of
illegally accreting land to Nygård Cay, donating money to the PLP, and controlling the “Smear
Campaign” -- the same tired claims that Mr. Bacon has been making for years to divert the
spotlight away from his own activities.
63.

Mr. Bacon has now made his endgame clear. 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 favor, 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.
64.

Until then, Mr. Bacon is diverting attention from his delays using litigation

gamesmanship.
XIV. Mr. Bacon Brings His War to U.S. Shores After He Corrupts Stephen Feralio
65.

Mr. Bacon has paid off an individual who formerly was a videographer for Mr.

Nygård and the Nygård Company, Stephen Feralio. Feralio had been engaged for a couple of
years by the Nygård Company as a creative director, and tasked with filming and editing videos
to promote charitable and business endeavors. After he was charged with illegally flying a drone
over Times Square after Mr. Nygård specifically told him not to (and Mr. Nygård refused to pay
for his legal defense), a disgruntled Feralio separated from the Nygård Company in early 2014,
24

and unlawfully misappropriated documents, emails, and thousands of hours of footage of Mr.
Nygård’s business meetings and social events (the “Misappropriated Materials”). An action is
currently underway in California in which the Nygård Company seeks the return of the
Misappropriated Materials.
66.

On March 24, 2014, Feralio attempted to contact Mr. Bacon for the purpose of

selling the Misappropriated Materials for supposed use against Mr. Nygård. Notwithstanding his
knowledge that Feralio was subject to strict contractual confidentiality and non-disclosure
provisions, and that the Misappropriated Materials were the property of the Nygård Company,
Mr. Bacon went forward with the transaction. During a meeting in San Francisco on April 7,
2014, Feralio showed portions of the Misappropriated Materials to Jack Palladino, a private
investigator hired by Mr. Bacon. After the meeting, Palladino and Mr. Bacon schemed with
Feralio to transfer to Mr. Bacon the Misappropriated Materials in violation of Feralio’s
agreements with the Nygård Company.
67.

Compensation from Mr. Bacon to Feralio was negotiated from the outset. In an

April 12, 2014 email to Palladino, Feralio wrote: “Would it be possible on your end to fly me to
NYC April 20th – 26th and put me in a hotel. [sic] We can then meet on the 22nd, 23rd, 25th,
and 26th. I would also like to lock in the compensation terms.”
68.

On May 1, 2014, Palladino met with Feralio again in California to discuss the

scheme. Because the agreements that Feralio had signed while working for the Nygård
Companies stated that the Misappropriated Materials belonged to the Nygård Companies and
prohibited their disclosure, Palladino explained that Mr. Bacon and his representatives planned to
manufacture a legal action to obtain the stolen materials under the auspices of a court-ordered
subpoena, which would require Feralio’s cooperation.

25

69.

Feralio agreed to participate and on May 15, 2014, Feralio traveled from Los

Angeles to New York to discuss the scheme further with Palladino and Mr. Bacon’s agents.
Mr. Bacon paid for Feralio’s airfare and lodging for that trip. At this meeting, it was determined
that Mr. Bacon would file an application in the Southern District of New York for discovery
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in assistance of foreign proceedings (the “1782 Application”).
70.

Feralio and Mr. Bacon agreed that, even though Feralio was a resident of Los

Angeles, he would consent to jurisdiction in New York for the sole purpose of responding to a
subpoena issued there, appear for a deposition in New York, and, in violation of his employment
agreements with the Nygård Company, make at least one copy of the Misappropriated Materials
and leave it in the custody of an attorney in New York.
71.

After a four-month period of negotiations between Mr. Bacon and his agents on

the one hand and Feralio and his lawyers (hired and paid for by Mr. Bacon) on the other, Mr.
Bacon and Feralio memorialized the terms of their agreement in a formal contract, executed on
July 31, 2014 (the “Compensation Agreement”). The Compensation Agreement is between
Feralio and Belvedere Property Management LLC (“Belvedere”), a real estate company owned
and controlled by Mr. Bacon that owns, among other things, Taos Ski Valley resort. Moreover,
the compensation owed to Feralio under the Compensation Agreement is guaranteed by Wilson
Mesa Ranch Holdings, LLC (“Wilson”), an entity that, according to published reports, owns Mr.
Bacon’s 2400-acre ranch located near Telluride, Colorado, that he purchased several years ago
for over $26 million.
72.

Pursuant to the Compensation Agreement, Feralio agrees, among other things, to

appear at Mr. Bacon’s request in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding anywhere in the world
to provide testimony, oral or written, regarding Feralio’s work for the Nygård Company. Feralio

26

also agrees to travel to New York (Bacon’s primary state of residence) whenever requested by
Mr. Bacon.
73.

In exchange for Feralio’s cooperation, Belvedere agrees -- and Wilson guarantees

Belvedere’s agreement -- to pay Feralio for counsel fees and expenses for two law firms,
including for any criminal prosecution Feralio may face in connection with stealing the
Misappropriated Materials and indemnify Feralio for stealing the Misappropriated Materials,
provided that Belvedere may supervise and control the defense of the action. Remarkably,
Belvedere further agrees to compensate Feralio in undisclosed amounts through “Security
Agreements” to be negotiated “in good faith.” And, under the Compensation Agreement,
Belvedere and Wilson must maintain a combined $10 million in their companies during the life
of the Compensation Agreement, to ensure that the payments owed to Feralio by Mr. Bacon are
secure.
74.

Feralio insisted that such negotiated payments would not be contingent on the

content of his statements or the outcomes of any matter in which he testifies. In addition to
paying for Feralio’s legal fees and cross-country travel expenses, Belvedere pays directly for the
rental of Feralio’s apartment, as well as all living expenses and undisclosed “subsistence”
payments, allowing Feralio to quit his job and spend his days now cooperating with Mr. Bacon.
XV.
75.

Blatant Misconduct Before Federal Judge Cote
In August 2014, Mr. Bacon filed the 1782 Application. The supposed purpose of

the application was to obtain the videotapes possessed by Feralio to aid the defamation and
judicial review (i.e., government corruption) lawsuits brought by Mr. Bacon in The Bahamas.
76.

In the course of the 1782 Application proceedings, Mr. Bacon repeatedly abused

the judicial process for the improper purpose of furthering his personal vendetta against Mr.

27

Nygård. Through the 1782 Application process, Mr. Bacon and his counsel continually made
false, inappropriate, and irrelevant statements attacking Mr. Nygård’s character.
77.

As filed by Mr. Bacon’s counsel on August 13, 2014, the 1782 Application

included numerous salacious and sensational statements about Mr. Nygård’s character that bore
no relevance whatsoever to the relief sought. In an affidavit submitted along with the 1782
Application, Mr. Bacon’s “reputational” counsel Jenny Afia -- a partner at the British law firm
Schillings -- made repeated references to purported sexual misconduct by Mr. Nygård. Even if
true -- which they are not -- these inflammatory references were included in the Application
solely for the improper purpose of damaging Mr. Nygård in furtherance of Mr. Bacon’s personal
vendetta.
78.

Mr. Bacon’s counsel also filed and submitted a letter to the court falsely and

recklessly accusing Mr. Nygård of having committed several crimes (“obstruction of justice,”
“tampering,” and violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1512, among other things). The letter
repeatedly and falsely referred to Feralio as a “federal witness” and intimated that there was a
parallel criminal action that accompanied the 1782 Application. The emails and texts referenced
did not remotely approach obstruction or tampering by any measure, and Mr. Bacon’s threats of
criminal liability amounted to nothing more than a transparent attempt to get salacious
allegations in the media, a tactic prohibited by the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mr. Bacon’s plan worked, and on September 17, 2014 -- the day after the letter was submitted to
Judge Cote -- The Bahamas Tribune published an article titled “Nygård ‘Obstruction of Justice’
Claims” that parroted Mr. Bacon’s baseless accusations.

28

79.

Judge Cote recognized that Mr. Bacon’s counsel improperly included irrelevant,

salacious, and sensational statements about Mr. Nygård in court submissions, and ordered the
redaction of the most egregious statements.
80.

Further, the 1782 Application sought discovery regarding a number of topics

completely unrelated to the subject matter of the Bahamian Actions in order to harass Mr.
Nygård. One such topic was an unfounded allegation that Mr. Nygård was seeking to build a
stem cell treatment facility on his own property in Nygård Cay. In connection with this
allegation, in one instance, Mr. Bacon’s counsel relied upon what they claimed were minutes of a
June 2012 meeting between Mr. Nygård and the Bahamian government. 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.
81.

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.
Falsification of government meeting minutes is of course a crime in The Bahamas and
elsewhere. And according to Mr. Nygård’s Bahamian counsel, government meeting minutes are
confidential in The Bahamas and possession and disclosure of government minutes is unlawful.
Regardless of whether Mr. Bacon’s counsel illegally obtained or fabricated the minutes, this
episode is yet another demonstration of the lengths to which Mr. Bacon will go to both harass
Mr. Nygård and distract attention from his own behavior.
82.

The 1782 Application was brought for the supposed purpose of demonstrating the

Bahamian government’s illegal favoritism towards Mr. Nygård. Much of the discovery sought

29

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, favors, 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.” But no materials showing “payments, donations, gifts,
presents, favors, 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.
XVI. Mr. Bacon Intensifies Attacks on Bahamians and Bahamian Government
83.

On November 12, 2014, Mr. Smith published an op-ed on the Huffington Post’s

“Black Voices” website explaining Mr. Bacon’s ancestral history and his lack of involvement in
the Save Clifton movement. Although the content of Mr. Smith’s piece was his own opinion or
factual statements backed up with historical evidence, Mr. Bacon’s British counsel Schillings -the same law firm that submitted the malicious, irrelevant, and inflammatory allegations in the
course of the 1782 Application -- sent a letter to the Huffington Post the very next day
threatening legal action the Huffington Post and demanding that Mr. Smith’s article be removed
from their site, deleted from their servers, and that Mr. Smith be banned from ever posting to the
Huffington Post again. Even though there was no defamatory material in Mr. Smith’s letter, the
Huffington Post capitulated to the threats and demands of Mr. Bacon.
84.

Notably, Mr. Bacon’s counsel did not dispute that Bacon’s ancestors owned

slaves nor that they were Ku Klux Klan members. Instead, they argued that this racist history
30

was somehow not reflective of Mr. Bacon’s own beliefs, notwithstanding the fact that (i) he did
not deny the ancestral facts stated by Mr. Smith, (ii) he did not state in either of his published
open letters that he did not share the beliefs of his Klu Klux Klan ancestors, (iii) he did not
apologize for his citation of a book well known to revere racists in the very same ceremony in
which he falsely received credit for leading a Bahamian grassroots movement, and (iv) he did not
deny (because he could not deny) the findings of the NYSDHR in connection with the Pierre
complaint. In total, the letter sent by Mr. Bacon’s counsel not only threatened legal action
despite there being no basis for legal action, but it mischaracterized Mr. Smith’s piece and was
intended to distort the actual issues presented by Mr. Smith. Like the above-captioned action,
Mr. Bacon’s letter to the Huffington Post is exemplary of his campaign to alienate native
Bahamians and silence any opposition with the use of litigation, intimidation, and manipulation
of the press.
85.

At the moment, the Progressive Liberal Party is the elected party in control of the

Bahamian government. The PLP is led by Prime Minister Christie, who happens to be a longtime friend of Mr. Nygård. Mr. Bacon attempts to use this friendship to insinuate that the PLP
improperly favors 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, 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.
86.

The Bahamian Actions, the 1782 Application, and this action are all diversionary

tactics. In truth, Mr. Bacon is just attempting to bend the will of Bahamians to suit his own

31

desires. The purported “Harassment Campaign” of which Mr. Bacon complains is nothing more
than a reaction to his effort to take advantage of the Bahamian people. Mr. Bacon’s repeated
efforts to turn the “Harassment Campaign” somehow into actionable legal defamation claims are
baseless.
COUNTERCLAIMS
PARTIES
87.

Counterclaim-Plaintiff Peter Nygård is a resident of The Bahamas, and the

Chairman, CEO, and founder of the Nygård Company.
88.

Counterclaim-Plaintiff Nygård International Partnership is a Canadian partnership

organized under Canadian law with its headquarters and principal place of business in Winnipeg,
Manitoba.
89.

Counterclaim-Plaintiff Nygård, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its

headquarters and principal place of business in New York, New York.
90.

Counterclaim-Defendant Louis Bacon is a resident of New York, New York.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Prima Facie Tort
Against Louis Bacon

91.

Mr. Nygård repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 90 as though fully set forth herein.
92.

Mr. Bacon, either directly or through employees, agents, proxies, and co-

conspirators, intentionally inflicted harm upon Mr. Nygård through the various acts outlined
above. These acts were performed by Mr. Bacon with the intent to injure Mr. Nygård.
93.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Bacon’s motive for the behavior outlined above

was disinterested malevolence.

32

94.

As a result of Mr. Bacon’s conduct, Mr. Nygård has suffered special damages.

These include, but are not limited to, attorneys’ fees and investigator fees of over $1,000,000,
which Mr. Nygård has been forced to expend in response to the above conduct and to defend
himself in the frivolous 1782 Application and this action.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Aiding and Abetting
Against Louis Bacon
95.

Mr. Nygård repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 94 as though fully set forth herein.
96.

Mr. Bacon, either directly or through agents, proxies, and co-conspirators,

committed the tort of prima facie tort.
97.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Bacon knew that his agents and accomplices

were engaging in these wrongful activities. Mr. Bacon, either through payments or other means,
compelled and induced his agents and accomplices to participate in his unlawful vendetta against
Mr. Nygård.
98.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Bacon, either through payments or other means,

induced his agents and accomplices to, among other things, among other things, harass Mr.
Nygård and his guests at Nygård Cay, cause damage to Nygård Cay, prevent access to Nygård
Cay, file frivolous lawsuits against Mr. Nygård, baselessly accuse Mr. Nygård of litigation
misconduct, and include irrelevant, salacious, and damaging allegations in litigation filings.
99.

Mr. Bacon’s acts as described above constitute civil aiding and abetting under

New York law, thus entitling Mr. Nygård to monetary and punitive damages.

33

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Conspiracy
Against Louis Bacon
100.

Mr. Nygård repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 99 as though fully set forth herein.
101.

Mr. Bacon, either directly or through agents, proxies, and co-conspirators,

committed the tort of prima facie tort.
102.

Mr. Bacon and his agents, proxies, and co-conspirators each knowingly and

intentionally combined, conspired, and agreed together and with others to engage in this course
of conduct.
103.

Mr. Bacon and his agents, proxies, and co-conspirators have each taken numerous

acts in furtherance of their corrupt agreement. These include paying agents and proxies to harass
Mr. Nygård, file frivolous lawsuits, and make irrelevant, salacious, and damaging allegations in
litigation filings.
104.

Numerous tortious activities occurred within the state of New York in furtherance

of the conspiracy. For example, upon information and belief, Mr. Bacon paid his counsel to
make irrelevant, salacious, and damaging allegations in litigation filings filed in the Southern
District of New York.
105.

Mr. Bacon is actively engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to injure Mr. Nygård

that rises to the level of prima facie tort, thus entitling Mr. Nygård to monetary and punitive
damages.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Nygård and the Nygård Company pray for the relief described
below.

34

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Mr. Nygård and the Nygård Company respectfully request judgment against Mr. Bacon
be entered as follows:
A. Awarding Counterclaim-Plaintiffs money damages in accordance with the evidence,
together with interest thereon to compensate Counterclaim-Plaintiffs for
Counterclaim-Defendant’s tortious conduct;
B. Awarding Counterclaim-Plaintiffs punitive damages sufficient to punish and deter
the conduct complained of herein in an amount not less than $50,000,000;
C. Awarding Counterclaim-Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs of suit herein;
D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just or proper.

35

ANSWER
Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Peter Nygård, Nygård International Partnership, and
Nygård, Inc. (“Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, hereby respond to the claims set forth in Plaintiff
Counterclaim-Defendant Louis Bacon’s (“Plaintiff Counterclaim-Defendant”) Amended
Complaint, dated March 3, 2015 (“Amended Complaint”), as follows:1
AS TO THE SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
106.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1

of the Amended Complaint.
107.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph 2

of the Amended Complaint.
108.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph 3

of the Amended Complaint.
109.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that paragraph 4 of the Amended

Complaint purports to state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
that a response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint.
110.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph 5

of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Mr. Nygård has traveled to New York
occasionally over the past number of years.
111.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6

of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Mr. Nygård and Mr. Bacon own adjacent
properties in The Bahamas.
1

Initially capitalized undefined terms used herein have the same meaning as in the Counterclaims.

112.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7

of the Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth or accuracy of the allegations concerning the primary mission of Save the Bays.
113.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8

of the Amended Complaint.
114.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph 9

of the Amended Complaint.
115.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

10 of the Amended Complaint.
116.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

11 of the Amended Complaint.
117.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

12 of the Amended Complaint.
118.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

13 of the Amended Complaint.
119.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

14 of the Amended Complaint.
120.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

15 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 15 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
121.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

16 of the Amended Complaint.

37

122.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

17 of the Amended Complaint.
123.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

18 of the Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the text displayed by protestors on t-shirts and placards.
124.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

19 of the Amended Complaint.
125.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

20 of the Amended Complaint.
126.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the
Amended Complaint, except admit that Keod Smith is Mr. Nygård’s attorney as to certain
matters.
127.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

22 of the Amended Complaint.
128.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

23 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that certain actions were taken to protect Mr.
Nygård’s property rights.
129.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

24 of the Amended Complaint.
130.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

25 of the Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

38

as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations regarding the raid on Mr. Bacon’s home in The
Bahamas.
131.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

26 of the Amended Complaint.
132.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

27 of the Amended Complaint.
133.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

28 of the Amended Complaint.
134.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

29 of the Amended Complaint.
135.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

30 of the Amended Complaint.
136.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the
Amended Complaint.
137.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

32 of the Amended Complaint.
138.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

33 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Steven Feralio has been paid by Mr. Bacon to
cooperate with him in his campaign against Mr. Nygård.
139.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

34 of the Amended Complaint.

39

140.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

35 of the Amended Complaint.
141.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

36 of the Amended Complaint.
AS TO THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
142.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the
Amended Complaint.
143.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

38 of the Amended Complaint.
144.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

39 of the Amended Complaint.
145.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

40 of the Amended Complaint.
146.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

41 of the Amended Complaint that the company has a website through which consumers may
purchase merchandise, and states that the remaining allegations in paragraph 41 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
147.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

42 of the Amended Complaint.
148.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit that Nygård International intervened in

the 1782 Action, and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Amended
Complaint.

40

149.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit that Nygård Inc. is organized under the

laws of Delaware, and state that the remaining allegations in paragraph 44 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
150.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs state that the allegations contained in

paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint refer to documents filed with the New York
Department of State, the contents of which speak for themselves.
151.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

46 of the Amended Complaint.
152.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

47 of the Amended Complaint, except that Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit that
Nygård Inc. employs individuals at its Times Square office.
153.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit that Nygård Inc. intervened in the 1782

Action, and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Amended
Complaint.
154.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

49 of the Amended Complaint.
155.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

50 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Mr. Nygård owns property in California and in
Canada.
156.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

51 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Mr. Nygård travels on a private jet to New
York and other destinations.

41

157.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

52 of the Amended Complaint, except deny the reference to the Times Square office as the
“Headquarters.”
158.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

53 of the Amended Complaint, except deny the reference to the Times Square office as the
“Headquarters.”
159.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

54 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Mr. Nygård has attended fashion events in New
York.
160.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

55 of the Amended Complaint.
161.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

56 of the Amended Complaint.
162.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

57 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 57 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
163.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

58 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 58 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
AS TO THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
164.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

59 of the Amended Complaint.

42

165.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

60 of the Amended Complaint, and state that paragraph 60 refers to a CBC broadcast, the content
of which speaks for itself.
166.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

61 of the Amended Complaint.
167.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

62 of the Amended Complaint.
168.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

63 of the Amended Complaint, and state that paragraph 63 refers to a Forbes Article, the content
of which speaks for itself.
169.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

64 of the Amended Complaint, and state that paragraph 64 refers to a Forbes Article, the content
of which speaks for itself.
170.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

65 of the Amended Complaint.
171.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

66 of the Amended Complaint.
172.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

67 of the Amended Complaint.
173.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

68 of the Amended Complaint.
174.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

69 of the Amended Complaint.

43

175.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

70 of the Amended Complaint.
176.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

71 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that a November 11, 2009 fire destroyed a number
of structures on Mr. Nygård’s property.
177.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit that Mr. Nygård sought building

permits to rebuild his home after the fire, and deny the remaining allegations contained in
paragraph 72 of the Amended Complaint.
178.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

73 of the Amended Complaint.
179.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

74 of the Amended Complaint.
180.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

75 of the Amended Complaint.
181.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

76 of the Amended Complaint.
182.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 77 of the
Amended Complaint.
183.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 78 of the
Amended Complaint.

44

184.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 79 of the
Amended Complaint.
185.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of the
Amended Complaint.
186.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

81 of the Amended Complaint.
187.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 82 of the
Amended Complaint, and state that paragraph 82 refers to a Daily Mail article, the content of
which speaks for itself.
188.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

83 of the Amended Complaint and state that paragraph 83 refers to a Daily Mail article, the
content of which speaks for itself.
189.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

84 of the Amended Complaint.
190.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

85 of the Amended Complaint.
191.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

86 of the Amended Complaint.
192.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

87 of the Amended Complaint, except that paragraph 87 refers to a July 23, 2013, Tribune

45

editorial and purported billing records, and that the content of such documents speak for
themselves.
193.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

88 of the Amended Complaint.
194.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

89 of the Amended Complaint.
195.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

90 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Nygård has traveled to New York several times
since 2010.
196.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

91 of the Amended Complaint.
197.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

92 of the Amended Complaint.
198.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

93 of the Amended Complaint.
199.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

94 of the Amended Complaint.
200.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

95 of the Amended Complaint.
201.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

96 of the Amended Complaint.
202.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

97 of the Amended Complaint.

46

203.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

98 of the Amended Complaint.
204.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

99 of the Amended Complaint.
205.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

100 of the Amended Complaint.
206.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

101 of the Amended Complaint.
207.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

102 of the Amended Complaint.
208.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

103 of the Amended Complaint.
209.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

104 of the Amended Complaint.
210.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

105 of the Amended Complaint.
211.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

106 of the Amended Complaint.
212.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

107 of the Amended Complaint.
213.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

108 of the Amended Complaint.

47

214.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit that Minister Louis Farrakhan flew in

Mr. Nygård’s plane to The Bahamas and attended a celebration at Nygård Cay, and deny the
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 109 of the Amended Complaint.
215.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

110 of the Amended Complaint.
216.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

111 of the Amended Complaint.
217.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

112 of the Amended Complaint.
218.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 113 of the
Amended Complaint.
219.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 114 of the
Amended Complaint.
220.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

115 of the Amended Complaint.
221.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 116 of the
Amended Complaint.
222.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

117 of the Amended Complaint.

48

223.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 118 of the
Amended Complaint.
224.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 119 of the
Amended Complaint.
225.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

120 of the Amended Complaint.
226.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

121 of the Amended Complaint.
227.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

122 of the Amended Complaint.
228.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

123 of the Amended Complaint.
229.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

124 of the Amended Complaint.
230.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 125 of the
Amended Complaint.
231.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

126 of the Amended Complaint.
232.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

127 of the Amended Complaint.

49

233.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

128 of the Amended Complaint.
234.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

129 of the Amended Complaint.
235.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

130 of the Amended Complaint.
236.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 131 of the
Amended Complaint.
237.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

132 of the Amended Complaint.
238.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

133 of the Amended Complaint.
239.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

134 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations contained in paragraph 134 call for
a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
240.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

135 of the Amended Complaint.
241.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

136 of the Amended Complaint.
242.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 137 of the
Amended Complaint.

50

243.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

138 of the Amended Complaint.
244.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

139 of the Amended Complaint.
245.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

140 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 140 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
246.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

141 of the Amended Complaint.
247.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

142 of the Amended Complaint.
248.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 143 of the
Amended Complaint.
249.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 144 of the
Amended Complaint.
250.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 145 of the
Amended Complaint.
251.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs state that the allegations contained in

paragraph 146 of the Amended Complaint refer to two supposed reports, the contents of which
speak for themselves.

51

252.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 147 of the
Amended Complaint.
253.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 148 of the
Amended Complaint.
254.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

149 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 149 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
255.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 150 of the
Amended Complaint.
256.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

151 of the Amended Complaint.
257.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 152 of the
Amended Complaint.
258.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 153 of the
Amended Complaint.
259.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 154 of the
Amended Complaint.

52

260.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs state that the allegations contained in

paragraph 155 of the Amended Complaint refer to two supposed reports, the contents of which
speak for themselves.
261.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 156 of the
Amended Complaint.
262.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 157 of the
Amended Complaint.
263.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

158 of the Amended Complaint.
264.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

159 of the Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations regarding “Brett Moore.”
265.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 160 of the
Amended Complaint.
266.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 161 of the
Amended Complaint.
267.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

162 of the Amended Complaint.

53

268.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 163 of the
Amended Complaint.
269.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 164 of the
Amended Complaint.
270.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 165 of the
Amended Complaint.
271.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 166 of the
Amended Complaint.
272.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 167 of the
Amended Complaint.
273.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 168 of the
Amended Complaint.
274.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

169 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 169 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.

54

275.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

170 of the Amended Complaint, except state that paragraph 170 refers to certain websites or
purported publications, the contents of which speak for themselves.
276.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 171 of the
Amended Complaint.
277.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

172 of the Amended Complaint.
278.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 173 of the
Amended Complaint.
279.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 174 of the
Amended Complaint.
280.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

175 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 175 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
281.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 176 of the
Amended Complaint.
282.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 177 of the
Amended Complaint.

55

283.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 178 of the
Amended Complaint.
284.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 179 of the
Amended Complaint.
285.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

180 of the Amended Complaint.
286.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 181 of the
Amended Complaint.
287.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 182 of the
Amended Complaint.
288.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 183 of the
Amended Complaint.
289.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 184 of the
Amended Complaint.
290.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 185 of the
Amended Complaint.

56

291.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 186 of the
Amended Complaint.
292.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 187 of the
Amended Complaint.
293.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 188 of the
Amended Complaint.
294.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

189 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 189 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
295.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 190 of the
Amended Complaint.
296.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 191 of the
Amended Complaint.
297.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

192 of the Amended Complaint.
298.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 193 of the
Amended Complaint.

57

299.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

194 of the Amended Complaint.
300.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

195 of the Amended Complaint.
301.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 196 of the
Amended Complaint.
302.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 197 of the
Amended Complaint.
303.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

198 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 198 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
304.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 199 of the
Amended Complaint.
305.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

200 of the Amended Complaint.
306.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

201 of the Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations regarding the raid on Mr. Bacon’s home in
The Bahamas, Point House.

58

307.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

202 of the Amended Complaint.
308.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

203 of the Amended Complaint, except that Fred Smith is a lawyer in The Bahamas.
309.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 204 of the
Amended Complaint.
310.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 205 of the
Amended Complaint.
311.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 206 of the
Amended Complaint.
312.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

207 of the Amended Complaint.
313.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 208 of the
Amended Complaint.
314.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

209 of the Amended Complaint.
315.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

210 of the Amended Complaint.

59

316.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 211 of the
Amended Complaint.
317.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

212 of the Amended Complaint.
318.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

213 of the Amended Complaint.
319.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

214 of the Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the whereabouts of Mr. Bacon and his family during anti-Bacon protests.
320.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

215 of the Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the text displayed on t-shirts and placards.
321.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 216 of the
Amended Complaint.
322.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

217 of the Amended Complaint, except state that the contents of the referenced signs speak for
themselves.
323.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

218 of the Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations regarding the Junkanoo or any anti-Bacon
protest on January 1, 2015.

60

324.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 219 of the
Amended Complaint.
325.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 220 of the
Amended Complaint, except state that the referenced images speak for themselves.
326.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

221 of the Amended Complaint.
327.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

222 of the Amended Complaint.
328.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

223 of the Amended Complaint.
329.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

224 of the Amended Complaint.
330.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

225 of the Amended Complaint.
331.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

226 of the Amended Complaint.
332.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

227 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that certain actions were taken to protect Mr.
Nygård’s property rights.
333.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

228 of the Amended Complaint.

61

334.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

229 of the Amended Complaint, except state that paragraph 229 refers to a lawsuit filed in a
Bahamas court, and that the contents therein speak for themselves.
335.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

230 of the Amended Complaint.
336.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

231 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Nygård did not perfect service in the First
Nygård Civil Action.
337.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs states that the allegations contained in

paragraph 232 of the Amended Complaint refer to a private criminal action affidavit, the content
of which speaks for itself.
338.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

233 of the Amended Complaint.
339.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs dany the allegations contained in paragraph

234 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that a nolle prosequi was issued.
340.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

235 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that a private criminal action was asserted against
Mr. Bacon.
341.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

236 of the Amended Complaint.
342.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

237 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Mr. Nygård voluntarily dismissed the Second
Nygård Criminal Conspiracy Action.

62

343.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

238 of the Amended Complaint, and state that paragraph 238 refers to the content of a civil
action filed in a Bahamas court, and that the contents of the referenced pleading speak for
themselves.
344.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

239 of the Amended Complaint.
345.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

240 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that the action was withdrawn.
346.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

241 of the Amended Complaint.
347.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

242 of the Amended Complaint.
348.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

243 of the Amended Complaint.
349.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

244 of the Amended Complaint.
350.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 245.
351.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 246 of the
Amended Complaint.
352.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

247 of the Amended Complaint.

63

353.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 248 of the
Amended Complaint.
354.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 249 of the
Amended Complaint.
355.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 250 of the
Amended Complaint.
356.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 251 of the
Amended Complaint.
357.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 252 of the
Amended Complaint.
358.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 253 of the
Amended Complaint.
359.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 254 of the
Amended Complaint.

64

360.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 255 of the
Amended Complaint.
361.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 256 of the
Amended Complaint.
362.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 257 of the
Amended Complaint.
363.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 258 of the
Amended Complaint.
364.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 259 of the
Amended Complaint.
365.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 260 of the
Amended Complaint.
366.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 261 of the
Amended Complaint.

65

367.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 262 of the
Amended Complaint.
368.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 263 of the
Amended Complaint.
369.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 264 of the
Amended Complaint.
370.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 265 of the
Amended Complaint.
371.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 266 of the
Amended Complaint.
372.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 267 of the
Amended Complaint.
373.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 268 of the
Amended Complaint.

66

374.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 269 of the
Amended Complaint.
375.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 270 of the
Amended Complaint.
376.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 271 of the
Amended Complaint.
377.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 272 of the
Amended Complaint.
378.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 273 of the
Amended Complaint.
379.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 274 of the
Amended Complaint.
380.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 275 of the
Amended Complaint.

67

381.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 276 of the
Amended Complaint.
382.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 277 of the
Amended Complaint.
383.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

278 of the Amended Complaint.
384.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 279 of the
Amended Complaint.
385.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 280 of the
Amended Complaint.
386.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 281 of the
Amended Complaint.
387.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 282 of the
Amended Complaint.
388.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 283 of the
Amended Complaint.

68

389.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit that Mr. Feralio acted as a videographer

for Mr. Nygård, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 284 of the Amended
Complaint.
390.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 285 of the
Amended Complaint.
391.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

286 of the Amended Complaint, except deny the allegation that the petitioners sought the
production of “evidence.”
392.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

287 of the Amended Complaint, except state that paragraph 287 of the Amended Complaint
refers to certain communications, the contents of which speak for themselves.
393.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

288 of the Amended Complaint.
394.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

289 of the Amended Complaint, except admit that Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
intervened in the 1782 Application proceeding.
395.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in paragraph

290 of the Amended Complaint except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in footnote 3 referenced therein.
396.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that paragraph 291 of the Amended

Complaint purports to state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent

69

that a response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 291 of the Amended Complaint.
397.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

292 of the Amended Complaint.
398.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

293 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 293 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
399.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

294 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 294 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
400.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

295 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 295 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
401.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

296 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 296 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
402.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that they are not required to respond to

the allegations contained in paragraph 297 of the Amended Complaint. To the extent that a
response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
their responses to paragraphs 1 through 296 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.

70

403.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

298 of the Amended Complaint.
404.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

299 of the Amended Complaint.
405.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

300 of the Amended Complaint.
406.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

301 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 301 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
407.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

302 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 302 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
408.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

303 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 303 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
409.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

304 of the Amended Complaint.
410.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that paragraph 305 of the Amended

Complaint purports to state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
that a response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 305 of the Amended Complaint.

71

AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
411.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that they are not required to respond to

the allegations contained in paragraph 306 of the Amended Complaint. To the extent that a
response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
their responses to paragraphs 1 through 305 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
412.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

307 of the Amended Complaint.
413.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

308 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 308 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
414.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

308 of the Amended Complaint.
415.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

310 of the Amended Complaint.
416.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

311 of the Amended Complaint.
417.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 312 of the
Amended Complaint.
418.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

313 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 313 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.

72

419.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

314 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 314 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
420.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

315 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 315 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
421.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

316 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 316 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
422.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

317 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 317 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
423.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

318 of the Amended Complaint.
424.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that paragraph 319 of the Amended

Complaint purports to state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
that a response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 319 of the Amended Complaint.
AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
425.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that they are not required to respond to

the allegations contained in paragraph 320 of the Amended Complaint. To the extent that a
response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs incorporate by reference

73

their responses to paragraphs 1 through 319 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
426.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

321 of the Amended Complaint.
427.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

322 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 322 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
428.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

323 of the Amended Complaint.
429.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

324 of the Amended Complaint.
430.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

325 of the Amended Complaint.
431.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in paragraph 326 of the
Amended Complaint.
432.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

327 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 327 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
433.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

328 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 328 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.

74

434.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

329 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 329 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
435.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

330 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 330 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
436.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

331 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 331 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
437.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

332 of the Amended Complaint.
438.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that paragraph 333 of the Amended

Complaint purports to state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
that a response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 333 of the Amended Complaint.
AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
439.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that they are not required to respond to

the allegations contained in paragraph 334 of the Amended Complaint. To the extent that a
response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
their responses to paragraphs 1 through 333 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
440.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

335 of the Amended Complaint.

75

441.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

336 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 336 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
442.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that paragraph 337 of the Amended

Complaint purports to state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
that a response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 337 of the Amended Complaint.
AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
443.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that they are not required to respond to

the allegations contained in paragraph 338 of the Amended Complaint. To the extent that a
response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
their responses to paragraphs 1 through 337 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
444.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

339 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 339 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
445.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

340 of the Amended Complaint.
446.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

341 of the Amended Complaint.
447.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that paragraph 342 of the Amended

Complaint purports to state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent

76

that a response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 342 of the Amended Complaint.
AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
448.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that they are not required to respond to

the allegations contained in paragraph 343 of the Amended Complaint. To the extent that a
response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
their responses to paragraphs 1 through 342 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
449.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

344 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 344 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
450.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

345 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 345 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
451.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

346 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 346 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
452.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in paragraph

347 of the Amended Complaint, and state that the allegations in paragraph 347 call for a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
453.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs aver that paragraph 348 of the Amended

Complaint purports to state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent

77

that a response is nevertheless required, Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 348 of the Amended Complaint.
AS TO THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF
454.

Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs deny that Mr. Bacon is entitled to any of the

relief he seeks in his Prayer For Relief.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because any statements made by Defendants CounterclaimPlaintiffs about Mr. Bacon were true and thus cannot be the basis for a defamation action.
Second Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because he is a public figure and any statements made by
Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs about Mr. Bacon were made in good faith and without actual
malice and thus cannot be the basis for a defamation action.
Third Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because any statements made by Defendants CounterclaimPlaintiffs about Mr. Bacon were made in good faith without malice and were fair comments on
matters of public concern within Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to
free speech and thus cannot be the basis for a defamation action.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because any statements made by Defendants CounterclaimPlaintiffs about Mr. Bacon were matters of opinion and thus cannot be the basis for a defamation
action.

78

Fifth Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because any statements made by Defendants CounterclaimPlaintiffs about Mr. Bacon were parody and thus cannot be the basis for a defamation action.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because any statements made by Defendants CounterclaimPlaintiffs about Mr. Bacon were rhetorical hyperbole and thus cannot be the basis for a
defamation action.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because any conduct of Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs was
not extreme and outrageous and thus cannot be the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because any conduct of Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs was
protected by both privilege and qualified privilege.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail because any conduct of Defendants Counterclaim-Plaintiffs was
in self-defense.
Tenth Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and other pertinent
equitable principles.
Eleventh Affirmative Defense
Mr. Bacon’s claims fail, in whole or in part, due to the applicable Statute of Limitations.

79