The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

BILLIONAIRE hedge fund manager Louis Bacon has appealed the dismissal of his $100m defamation case against his Lyford Cay neighbour Peter Nygard in a US court citing new evidence.

However, all references to the "new facts" have been redacted in the copy issued by the New York County Clerk.

"Particularly in a digital age, when a cyber-bully like Peter Nygard can direct defamatory material in New York at the click of a button, it would be unjust and contrary to public policy to force Mr Bacon abroad to vindicate his rights against a vicious assault happening right here at home," the appeal read.

Mr Bacon alleged that the Canadian fashion designer had embarked on a “harassment campaign” against him in the Bahamas; however, New York Justice Cynthia Kern ruled that the matter should be adjudicated in the Bahamas even though Mr Bacon is a New York resident.

The appeal was filed on September 9 and makes the claim that Mr Nygard's defendants deprived Mr Bacon and the New York court of key evidence. As such, Mr Bacon's arguments against dismissal were said to be "fatally" undermined.

"The court, in granting the Nygard defendants' motion to dismiss, accepted their characterisation of the defamation campaign as having been directed towards the Bahamas rather than New York," the writ read.

"Meanwhile, the day after they filed their reply brief, the Nygard defendants finally started producing documents, after months of stonewalling and weeks after Mr Bacon's document production began,"

Mr Bacon's appeal furthers that the new evidence produced by Mr Nygard after the close of briefing bolsters his right to have his case heard in his home state.

The appeal also highlighted the contrast between protections provided to defendants under Bahamian law and protections afforded in the US.

"Because Bahamian law does not offer defendants the same protections as the First Amendment would here, federal and state laws addressing enforcement of foreign defamation judgements, including the federal "Speech Act" and New York's "Liberal Terrorism Protection Act", likely would preclude any attempt to enforce a Bahamian defamation judgement against the Defendants in the United States, or would make doing so exceptionally burdensome for both the courts and the parties."

The appeal continued: "A forum non conveniens dismissal would thus in effect require Mr Bacon to win the case twice to recover his full damages against some or all of the Defendants - yet another reason for the court to revisit, and reverse, its dismissal order."