The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Briland tourism operator, who alleges he was “used as an unwitting ‘front’ to deceive” both the Government and Bahamian law, is battling demands from his estranged US business partner to hand over all correspondence with the now-Cabinet Minister who served as his former attorney.

Julian ‘Shaq’ Gibson, operator of the Conch & Coconut tour operator, destination management and visitor “concierge” business, is resisting attempts by Pablo Conde to force him to disclose all “communications and payments” to Darron Pickstock, the Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien attorney who is now serving as minister of state for Immigration, as part of the legal ‘discovery’ process in their dispute before the south Florida federal court.

Legal documents obtained by Tribune Business disclose that the Harbour Island-based Bahamian entrepreneur is arguing against Mr Conde’s document production bid on the basis that all dealings between himself and Mr Pickstock, as Conch & Coconut’s former local legal representative, are protected by ‘attorney-client privilege’. This keeps all such communications confidential, and exempts them from having to be disclosed publicly in court.

However, Mr Conde, who controlled and oversaw the US side of Conch & Coconut’s operations before his acrimonious split with Mr Gibson, is countering that the communications with Mr Pickstock are not covered by ‘attorney-client privilege’ because he was the latter’s “co-client” alongside his former Bahamian partner.

Mr Conde is alleging this is because it was himself and the US operation that originally hired, and paid for, Mr Pickstock and Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien’s services to help defend Conch & Coconut over the company’s initial $1.2m unpaid tax arrears owed to the Department of Inland Revenue. And, following the two partners’ messy break-up, he is claiming that a compromise was reached whereby the Bahamian law firm continued to represent both himself and Mr Gibson over the tax woes.

Mr Conde’s demands appear to be part of a wider ‘fishing expedition’ that is digging for incriminating evidence wherever it can be found, and there is nothing to suggest that Mr Pickstock has done anything wrong in relation to the Conch & Coconut saga and its ongoing legal battle. While he was a Senator when hired by the tourism operator, he did not sit in Cabinet, and will have stepped down from his role as attorney following his post-May 12 ministerial appointment.

Papers filed with the south Florida federal court last week on May 28, 2026, reveal how Mr Gibson is objecting to his ex-business partner’s demand that he “describe the nature of your relationship with Bahamian politician and attorney, Darron Pickstock, including any role that you may have in directing or supervising” the latter’s work. Mr Conde, as part of document production and discovery requests, also wants disclosure of all communications with, and payments to, the Bahamian attorney.

Mr Gibson, in urging the US court to reject such demands, asserted: “Mr Pickstock is [was] legal counsel to Mr Gibson and Ltd. Accordingly, Mr Gibson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. His law firm, Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien, is the registered agent for the Ltd.” The references to Ltd mean the Bahamian, Briland-based Conch & Coconut operation run by Mr Gibson. Mr Conde controls the US-based LLC.

Meanwhile, expanding upon his objections, the Bahamian entrepreneur added: “Mr Gibson also objects that this interrogatory is over broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, and disproportionate to the discovery needs of the case.

“This interrogatory is not focused on any particular topic, let alone any topic that is relevant to the current dispute. This interrogatory serves no legitimate purpose, is not tied to any issue in the case, and is proffered simply to impose undue cost and burden on Mr Gibson.”

However, Mr Conde begged to differ. He reaffirmed, in the parties’ joint motion for discovery, that as part of the process he is seeking “the production and identification of communications and payments to Bahamian attorney, Darron Pickstock, and his firm” on the basis that such documentary evidence is not covered by attorney/client privilege as himself and Mr Gibson were the latter’s “co-clients”.

“The LLC’s principal, Mr Conde, hired Pickstock to represent both the LLC and Gibson/the Ltd’s interests in the tax dispute with the Department of Inland Revenue,” Mr Conde argued. “A question arose in May 2023 regarding who Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien and Pickstock represented.

“It was agreed on May 10, 2023, as a pre-condition to the LLC continuing to pay Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien, that Pickstock and Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien represented LLC and Gibson/the Ltd as to the tax issues.

“Accordingly Gibson and the LLC are joint clients as to the tax liability, and communications between co-clients and their common attorney are ‘not privileged as between the co-clients in a subsequent adverse proceeding between them’. The discovery is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Gibson’s refusal to respond is improper.”

Mr Conde, in a May 28, 2026, affidavit alleged that all parties had to resolve a potential conflict of interest over who Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien was representing when he and Mr Gibson split in 2023.

“On or about March 28, 2023, I hired and paid Bahamian attorney, Darron Pickstock, and his law firm, Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien, to represent the LLC’s interests and Gibson/the Ltd’s interests in resolving the tax dispute with the Department of Inland Revenue,” Mr Conde alleged. “This included initial payments of $220,000 from the LLC and $150,000 of my own personal funds to Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien for its fees and for initial VAT tax payments made on Gibson’s debt.

“Shortly thereafter, I provided sensitive and confidential financial information of the LLC to attorney Pickstock and Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien for their use in their representation of the LLC and Gibson/the Ltd, and participated in all decision-making and legal strategy discussions relating to how to address the tax issues.”

After the divisions between Mr Conde and Mr Gibson emerged, the former alleged that a three-way conference call was held on May 8, 2023, that ultimately resulted in an agreement two days’ later “where the LLC and Gibson/LTD were joint clients of Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien with respect to the tax matter, and Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien independently represented Gibson/LTD with respect to any separation agreement”.

Mr Conde asserted: “But for this agreement, I and the LLC would not have continued paying Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien for their legal services.. We have documents that we can make available to the court demonstrating that Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien represented the LLC, that these meetings took place… and that the LLC continued to pay Glinton, Sweeting & O’Brien’s bills after May 10, 2026 [sic, 2023].”

However Mr Gibson, in his objections to Mr Conde’s discovery demands, reiterated his position that it was his former partner - and not himself - who was responsible for the unpaid Bahamian tax bill and arrears. “In reality, the tax obligation was always owed by Mr Conde and/or LLC,” the Conch & Coconut operator argued.

“Subject to, and without waving the foregoing objections, Mr Gibson states that from the outset and until May 2025, the LLC collected 100 percent of the revenue generated by Mr Gibson and Ltd. Thus, LLC controlled 100 percent of all revenue and cash flow, and was responsible for the payment of Bahamian taxes from those proceeds.

“In addition, LLC’s and Mr Conde’s legal obligation to pay the taxes was memorialised in – but was not created by – the C&L agreement. Since May 2025, and plaintiff’s [Mr Conde’s breach or repudiation of the C&L agreement, Ltd has made all required VAT payments, past and present, on a timely basis pursuant to an agreed-upon payment plan with Department of Inland Revenue.”

The ‘C&L Agreement’ refers to an October 2023 deal struck between Mr Gibson and Mr Conde, whereby the fomer would acquire the assets of the Bahamian operations via a so-called lease from his erstwhile US partner, while the latter was to pay the outstanding tax debts owed to the Department of Inland Revenue.

Mr Gibson, meanwhile, in the latest legal filings accepted Mr Conde’s invitation to explain his contention that he was ‘fronting’ for the latter as tour operations, destination management and vacation rentals are supposed to be exclusively reserved for 100 percent Bahamian ownership under the National Investment Policy, which is a policy rather than a law.

“Mr Conde and LLC set up the business structure with Mr Gibson and then Ltd with an intent to deceive the Bahamian government,” Mr Gibson alleged. “In The Bahamas, ‘fronting’ refers to the illegal or prohibited practice where a Bahamian acts as a nominal owner or ‘public face’ of a business to facilitate its operation while a foreign national is the true owner and beneficiary.

“This scheme is used to bypass the National Investment Policy, which restricts business sectors exclusively for Bahamians. LLC set this up without Mr Gibson’s knowledge and used him as an unwitting ‘front’ with an intent to deceive the Bahamian government and circumvent the laws/policies of The Bahamas.”

Footnote

Battle - Page XX

Headline

Briland operator blames $1.2m

tax arrears on former partner