By Neil Hartnell

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Briland tourism operator has warned a Florida court that imposing a two-year ban on “competing” with its former partner will directly conflict with a Supreme Court Order and has no standing due to an $800,000-plus Bahamian tax debt.

Julian ‘Shaq’ Gibson, operator of the Conch & Coconut tour operator, destination management and visitor “concierge” business, in legal papers filed with the south Florida federal court argued that shutting his company down for 24 months - as demanded by his ex-US partner, Pablo Conde - would cause “irreconcilable conflict” with a Bahamian court Order issued that very same day.

For Justice Simone Fitzcharles, on November 14, 2025, ordered that Mr Conde and his US-domiciled companies be barred from interfering or intervening with Mr Gibson and the latter’s Harbour Island-based operations until the full trial over the disputes created by the “messy dissolution” of their business partnership occurs.

The Order also prevents Mr Conde from filing a winding-up petition, and/or seeking to put Conch & Coconut’s Bahamian operations into liquidation, over a demand that he be paid $855,774 representing sums allegedly due under a ‘lease and buyback’ deal where Mr Gibson purportedly agreed to acquire the business and its assets from his US partner via a series of payments to be made over a ten-year period.

And Mr Gibson, in his separate November 14, 2025, legal filings with the Florida court, argued that Mr Conde has no standing or grounds to seek a two-year ban on Conch & Coconut’s Bahamian operations from competing with him because it is the ex-US partner who has breached the deal by failing to pay more than $800,000 in past due Bahamian taxes.

The ‘lease and buyback’ deal commits Mr Conde to settling all outstanding VAT and Business Licence fee debts with the Department of Inland Revenue, but he previously refused to pay on the basis that the taxes demanded were “grossly inflated” and he - and Conch & Coconut - are actually owed $100,000.

Mr Gibson, demanding that the dispute with Mr Conde be resolved in The Bahamas and not the south Florida federal courts, argued that the latter should not interfere with the Supreme Court’s orders and refuse to grant his former business partner the injunction he is seeking.

“Plaintiff’s revised proposed order asks this court to bar the Gibson defendants from ‘competing’ with plaintiff for 24 months based on the ‘lease and buyback’ agreement despite plaintiff being in breach of that agreement,” Mr Gibson asserted in his legal arguments.

“This request is excessive and unjustifiable given that plaintiff [Mr Conde] is not currently conducting business, and cannot conduct business, in The Bahamas. Even a more limited remedy may create irreconcilable conflicts with Bahamian court rulings.

“Today, a court in The Bahamas enjoined plaintiff ‘from interfering with the business operations of [Conch and Coconut] in any way whatsoever’. This is the second injunction order from Bahamian courts. The [Florida] court should abstain from issuing a third injunction and allow these disputes to be resolved in the Bahamian courts.”

Justice Fitzcharles, in her Order, has barred Mr Conde and his companies from making public statements on his $855,774 demand letter; disparaging the “solvency” of Conch & Coconut’s Briland operations; suggesting they have any “entitlement/ownership” in the Bahamian business; and making “any assertions” that the latter is “closed, no longer in business or otherwise not operating in any way”.

Mr Conde and his US companies are also barred “from interfering with the business operations of [Conch & Coconut] in any way whatsoever”. The Order was obtained after Mr Gibson and Conch & Coconut, via an ex-parte application to the Supreme Court by their attorney, Simone Morgan-Gomez of Callenders & Co, argued that the matter was urgent. Both parties are due to appear before the Supreme Court on December 15, 2025, and Mr Conde has the ability to apply to discharge the injunction.

In the meantime, Mr Gibson told the south Florida federal court that Mr Conde’s breach of their deal through his failure to pay the outstanding Bahamian taxes should block him from using the agreement as a basis for a 24-month competition bar.

“In plaintiff’s revised proposed order, plaintiff asks this court to enjoin the Gibson defendants ‘from competing with Conch & Coconut LLC for a period of 24 months . . . including by advertising, selling, offering for sale, marketing or promoting into the United States’ the services that the Gibson defendants have been providing in The Bahamas for the past seven years,” Mr Gibson argued.

“But Mr Conde testified during the October 31 hearing that he is in breach of the ‘lease and buyback’ agreement because he has refused to pay the taxes owed to the Bahamian government as required by its terms. Because plaintiff is in breach of the ‘lease and buyback’ agreement, plaintiff has no standing in equity and is not entitled to an order enforcing the ‘lease and buyback’ agreement.”

Mr Gibson’s legal findings alleged that Mr Conde is seeking to find “a new partner in The Bahamas” to replace him, and continue operating in a sector that is reserved exclusively for 100 percent Bahamian ownership under the National Investment Policy.

“During the hearing, Mr Conde testified that since May 2025, when the parties parted ways, plaintiff has not generated any revenue. He attributed this absence of revenue to the Gibson defendants being the only previous source of income for plaintiff, and indicated there are no alternative revenue streams at present,” Mr Gibson alleged.

“Mr Conde also mentioned efforts to find a new partner in The Bahamas, though none has been secured yet, and reported that plaintiff is not pursuing other business outside The Bahamas. Such admissions demonstrate that there is no irreparable harm here being caused by the Gibson defendants’ ongoing conduct, nor any conduct attributable to any of the defendants.

“Mr Conde confirmed that plaintiff cannot offer tourism services in The Bahamas because it is not a Bahamian company and Mr Conde is not a Bahamian citizen. Plaintiff has decided not to use the Conch & Coconut mark for other businesses, such as travel concierge services beyond The Bahamas,” Mr Gibson added.

“Thus, any lack of revenue results from plaintiff’s own business choices, not the actions of any defendant. Enjoining the Gibson defendants from ‘competing’ with plaintiff does not remedy the harm that plaintiff is allegedly suffering. Plaintiff still cannot conduct business in The Bahamas. And the Gibson defendants continuing to provide services in The Bahamas does not prevent plaintiff from finding a new ‘partner’ in The Bahamas.”

Mr Gibson argued that granting the two-year competition ban, as sought by Mr Conde, would go much further than the legal purpose of injunctions which is typically to preserve the present state of affairs between the two sides.

“Plaintiff’s revised proposed order seeks to prevent the Gibson defendants’ from continuing their business operations that existed before the dispute by prohibiting them from ‘competing’ with plaintiff,” Mr Gibson argued.

“It also seeks to severely harm their business by preventing them from advertising to US residents, who Mr Conde testified comprise 95 percent of their customer base. This would not restore the pre-dispute status quo but would instead create an entirely new competitive landscape that never previously existed.

“Finally, plaintiff’s requested mandatory relief would directly conflict with the November 14 order from the Bahamian court. This jurisdictional conflict, combined with plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate enforceable trademark rights due to naked licensing, inability to show irreparable harm, and breach of the very contract it seeks to enforce, compels denial of the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief.”