PETER TURNQUEST IS NOT VINDICATED BUT CONDEMNED

Peter Turnquest, the man who lost his job as Deputy Prime Minister under the hapless Hubert Minnis as Prime Minister, has dreams of sugar plums dancing in his head.  As reported in The Tribune on 15 April 2024, Mr. Turnquest says that the action brought against him of conspiracy to defraud by Willaim Kaiser his former business partner in the now defunct Sky Bahamas, failed and that he  (Mr. Turnquest) had overcome.  That is fanciful.  The judgement is not a vindication.  He stands condemned of breaching his statutory duty as a fiduciary.  The judge accused him of lies and inconsistencies.  How he can claim victory is beyond us. Read the words for yourself in the judgement.  We don’t think that Kwasi Thompson has anything to worry about from Peter Turnquest who is obviously delusional in hoping to get the FNM nomination for East Grand Bahama again. In the Judgement, Peter Turnquest is referred to as the First Defendant. Here is what The Tribune reported:

: “The evidence of the first defendant is riddled with inconsistencies. Some of it appears to be hapless fabrication and parts, in my view, were recently-fashioned.” 

However, the judge found that Mr Turnquest breached his fiduciary duty to Alpha Aviation, as one of its directors, over the deed of release with Mr Kaiser asserting that he was “attempting to justify the unjustifiable”. The former deputy prime minister argued that there could be no breach because his actions were approved by the Sky Bahamas principal.

 “I find that the first defendant procured the execution of the deed of release without the knowledge of the beneficial owner, the other director of the company,” Justice Carla Stubbs found. “I find that he acted alone – without the knowledge of Mr Kaiser…. The actions of the first defendant do not reflect the conduct of a director required to ‘act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company’.”

She branded Mr Turnquest’s explanations as “fraught with inconsistencies and internally illogical”, and said it would be expected that companies retain collateral to secure loans they have made unless the Board of Directors determines otherwise.

 “A prudent director acting in the best interest of the company would have either sought to ensure that the loan was paid off at the time of the execution of the deed of release or that substitute collateral had been secured. Indeed, this is what the first defendant indicated that he attempted to do. This is what he did not do,” Justice Card-Stubbs ruled.

 “I find that the first defendant, in procuring the execution of the deed of release, and in executing same himself, acted against the company’s best interest. As a result, I hold that the first defendant failed in his fiduciary duty to the company to act in its best interest.

 “Additionally, the first defendant by his own admission was aware that the plaintiff did not have the requisite approvals and permits to carry on the business of lending/investments in The Bahamas and any investments made must have received approvals of the Central Bank of The Bahamas.

 “However, the first defendant proceeded with Mr Kaiser to enter into a mortgage agreement with the second and third defendants which also amounted to a breach of both his fiduciary duty and his duty to exercise due care, diligence and skill.”