The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE WARRING parties at the Old Bahama Bay resort yesterday renewed battle over its ousted management company’s demand that the hotel’s proprietor stop trying to entice condo owners to join its unit rental offering.

Mark Flowers, attorney for Island Ventures Resort & Club (IVRC), in an October 23, 2026 letter, called on the Grand Bahama resort’s corporate owner, LRA-OBB Ltd, to “cease and desist” soliciting condo owners to join its programme following a Supreme Court verdict that found his client has “a contractual relationship” with some to manage the rental bookings for their units.

This sparked a swift counter from Michael Scott KC, attorney for LRA-OBB, who said the demand that the West End resort’s owner halt its “lettings, bookings and revenue collection” activities over the condo unit rentals was “unsupported” by Justice Constance Delancy’s October 22, 2026, verdict.

She, as Tribune Business previously reported, rejected IVRC’s bid to regain immediate control of Old Bahama Bay amid the furious ongoing legal battle with LRA-OBB, which stands for Lubert-Adler/Old Bahama Bay. Lubert Adler was the financing partner for the failed Ginn project, and the judge was “not persuaded” that ousting the corporate owner in favour of IVRC was the best action to take.

However, both sides now appear to be interpreting her judgment very differently. Mr Flowers, in his letter to Mr Scott, signalled he had already complained on October 19, 2026, about a letter issued by OBB Hospitality, the entity appointed by LRA-OBB to take over Old Bahama Bay’s management from IVRC, “soliciting the unit owners to place their units in its rental programme”.

IVRC has asserted it has contractual agreements with 58 of Old Bahama Bay’s 73 condo owners to manage rental bookings for their units and collect the associated revenues. Mr Flowers, in his letter, implied that OBB Hospitality’s rival condo rental programme will violate his client’s contract relationships.

“Given the ruling, your client and OBB Hospitaltiy must cease and desist, with immediate effect, from renting or purporting to rent any unit whose owner is contractually bound by his agreement with the first claimant [IVRC], and from taking bookings for, or collecting, any revenue in respect of any such unit, whether on behalf of the unit owner or otherwise,” Mr Flowers demanded.

“The management of the bookings of those units is the subject of the very contractual relationship the court recognised. Neither your client nor OBB Hospitality holds any estate in the units or any authority from those owners to let them.” Mr Flowers added that unit owners planned to “take and receive bookings for their own units” directly, or via IVRC and other agents.

He demanded that LRA-OBB and OBB Hospitality confirm in writing by today that they have “ceased, and will not resume, the renting of, and the taking of bookings for and collecting of revenue” for the unit owners with which IVRC has management contracts.

Mr Scott, though, dismissed the call to halt OBB Hospitality’s rental initiative, arguing this was never ordered by Justice Delancy in her ruling. “Your demand that our client and OBB Hospitality cease all lettings, bookings and revenue collection for the units you describe is likewise unsupported by the ruling,” he blasted.

“[The ruling] recognises contractual relationships between IVRC and some unit owners. Those private booking arrangements do not revive IVRC's licence or create rights over LRA-OBB's property. The court did not determine that every such agreement remains subsisting and exclusive, restrain lettings authorised by an owner, or adjudicate any alleged interference with a particular agreement.

“If you maintain a specific claim concerning a particular unit, identify the unit, the subsisting contractual provision relied upon, the conduct complained of and the basis on which it is said to bind or give rise to liability on the part of our client. Nothing in this letter asserts any entitlement to let a unit without the necessary authority. Equally, no admission is made as to the alleged absence of authority asserted in your letter.”

Mr Flowers, meanwhile, also argued that the Supreme Court verdict meant unit owners have free access to their properties. He added: “Free access means there is to be no obstruction whatsoever. This means no barricade, gate, checkpoint, chain or lock. No turning away, stopping or questioning of unit owners, their tenants, guests, invitees, servants or agents by security personnel.

“And no charge, condition, permission imposed as the price of passing over the roadways, walkways or common property.” Mr Flowers argued that the same access rights also applied to IVRC and its personnel when it came to Old Bahama Bay marina dock slips that it owned, and said access confirmation was key for the hosting of the Wahoo Charity Cup on November 19, 2026.

Mr Scott, however, hit back by warning that IVRC’s injunction bid, through which it sought to regain control at Old Bahama Bay, was dismissed by Justice Delancy. “Your account of the effect of Justice Delancy’s ruling dated October 22, 2026, is materially incomplete, and the demands you seek to derive from it are unsustainable,” he charged.

“They cannot properly be presented as granting the mandatory and prohibitory relief which the court declined to grant. The court expressly left issues concerning title and the management of the resort, its resources and amenities undetermined at this interlocutory stage.”

Mr Scott said the Supreme Court verdict established that LRA-OBB is “entitled to deal with and exercise control over its own property within the resort”, and it also “declined at this stage to infer that the unit owners' property rights automatically established IVRC's entitlement to occupy or exercise operational control over LRA-OBB’s property”.

“Those passages cannot be disregarded when construing the ruling,” Mr Scott added. “As you are well aware, IVRC's licence to occupy and operate upon LRA-OBB's property has been cancelled. IVRC consequently has no subsisting rights under that licence which it can exercise itself or confer upon others. The ruling neither revived the licence nor restored any such entitlement.

“The unit owners' rights of access and use, as against LRA-OBB, are confined to those conferred by their respective declarations of condominium, construed according to their terms and consistently with the existing court orders. They enjoy no additional contractual or derivative rights over LRA-OBB's property through IVRC

“An agreement with IVRC cannot confer rights which IVRC itself no longer possesses or enlarge the rights granted by a declaration. Equally, an owner cannot authorise IVRC, as agent, to exercise any wider right than that owner possesses.”

Mr Scott said Mr Flowers’ demands for access on behalf of his clients go “materially beyond the ruling. The court made no order abolishing gates, checkpoints or security arrangements, prohibiting every inquiry by security personnel, or adopting the unrestricted access regime you describe.

“Any security arrangements must remain consistent with lawful rights of access. Whether a particular measure unlawfully interferes with an established right depends on the relevant instruments and facts. Your letter cannot supply the injunction which was refused,” he wrote.