By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Briland tourism business is fighting a second battle against efforts to “destroy” it and “force” staff terminations despite successfully preventing its shut-down before the Supreme Court.

Julian ‘Shaq’ Gibson, operator of the Conch & Coconut tour business, destination management and visitor “concierge” experience, is embroiled in a separate legal contest - this time before the south Florida federal court - to block his now-estranged former US business partner, Pablo Conde, from obtaining an injunction to effectively force the company to close.

Court filings obtained by Tribune Business reveal that Mr Conde is demanding the US court bar Mr Gibson and his operation from continuing to use the ‘Conch & Coconut’ and ‘Crack open the Good Life’ slogans on the basis that he owns the trademarks/patents for them. And his injunction bid is also seeking an Order that would freeze and “restrain” the Harbour Island firm’s bank accounts and assets.

But Mr Gibson, in an October 13, 2025, response asserted that his former business partner is effectively seeking a ‘second bite’ at obtaining an injunction after the Supreme Court largely rejected similar demands made by Mr Conde in The Bahamas.

Justice Darron Ellis, in an October 10, 2025, Order ruled that Mr Gibson and Conch & Coconut only be “restrained from selling or transferring the titles of the vehicles and boats” that they possess in The Bahamas “in order to maintain the status quo”. The judge, rejecting Mr Conde’s attempt to shut down his ex-business partner, ruled that the latter can “fully utilise the vehicles anywhere” in The Bahamas.

The Supreme Court order came after Mr Conde’s Bahamian attorney, Mario McCartney, filed a ‘certificate of urgency’ seeking a speedy hearing. “An urgent situation has arisen requiring immediate attention to protect the company’s assets, goodwill, intellectual property, business opportunities and confidential information,” Mr Conde and his attorney alleged.

“It is our position that (Conch & Coconut and Mr Gibson) are in use, control and/or dealing with company assets and properties without the authority of [Mr Conde], including but not limited to the company’s name, trademarks, websites, domain names, social media accounts, vehicles and other tangible and intangible property.”

Mr Conde, who on September 3, 2025, had demanded Conch & Coconut pay him a combined $919,799 to cover “equipment” and unpaid lease arrears, had claimed he would suffer “irreparable harm” - and that asset belonging to him could be dissipated or misused - unless the Supreme Court granted his desired injunction.

This, if approved, would have forced Mr Gibson and Conch & Coconut to “cease using or maintaining any connection” with the name, brand, trademarks and logos, plus “cease all access, control or use” of the website and payment gateways and “surrender” all property to Mr Conde.

Justice Ellis did not agree and, following his ruling, Mr Gibson and Conch & Coconut are now arguing that the south Florida federal court stand down in favour of the dispute being litigated and decided in The Bahamas where the company’s operations and assets are.

The Bahamian entrepreneur argued in legal papers that Mr Conde’s second injunction bid “is extraordinary and would create undue hardship for the defendants” if granted by the US court. Noting that his former partner is demanding he “stop doing business altogether”, Mr Gibson said such an outcome will “devastate” Conch & Coconut.

“Plaintiff seeks an injunction that would not only bar defendants from using the Conch & Coconut mark but, to the extent this court can grant injunctive relief in The Bahamas, would also prevent the Gibson parties from conducting any business in The Bahamas,” Mr Gibson asserted to the south Florida federal court.

“Plaintiff [Mr Conde] also asks this court to freeze their bank accounts and those of unrelated parties. This relief would not prevent any harm to plaintiff, as plaintiff is legally prohibited from offering the relevant services in The Bahamas and has never operated there.

“In contrast, the requested injunction would devastate the Gibson parties, who employ a team of 12 Bahamian citizens. Freezing accounts and halting operations would force lay-offs and destroy a locally owned business, while plaintiff would remain unable to operate in The Bahamas regardless of the injunction,” he added.

“The Gibson parties will soon be booking trips for customers and will need to be operational for the tourism months. The balance of hardship therefore weighs heavily against plaintiff, which cannot show that the requested injunction would benefit it, but would cause severe and irreparable harm to the Gibson parties.”

Suggesting that Mr Conde’s requested injunction would be “adverse to the public interest”, Mr Gibson and his Harbour Island-based business added: “The Gibson parties operate a business in another country offering services that plaintiff cannot offer there.

“If the court issued the requested injunction, it would be inflicting substantial harm on the Gibson parties and their employees that depend on the tourism industry for their livelihoods. Further, the court risks competing injunctions as a court in The Bahamas has already partially ruled on plaintiff’s application for an injunction.

“If the court determines that a Bahamian company may be enjoined for its activities in The Bahamas, then a court in The Bahamas could potentially issue an injunction against plaintiff on similar grounds. Consideration of the public interest suggests that the dispute should be addressed within The Bahamas, where there is already an ongoing case, in recognition of national jurisdictional boundaries.”

The furious bust-up between the US and Bahamian business partners has exposed alleged ‘fronting’ and hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes owed to the Department of Inland Revenue. 

Mr Conde, who describes himself as the founder and owner of Conch & Coconut LLC, the US-based arm of the business, is accusing Mr Gibson, who allegedly managed the Briland operation on his behalf, and others of stealing “the brand and business structure” that he financed and built.

He is claiming that Mr Gibson and his associates have engaged in “theft of trade secrets” and “unfair competition” by obtaining Conch & Coconut’s customer data, and “cancelling” or closing out its existing bookings, ahead of launching a rival business offering the same services under the same brand name.

However, Mr Gibson has countered with legal action of his own and is accusing Mr Conde of “preying” upon himself and others to launch illegal “fronting” operations in industries reserved solely for local ownership.

He is also seeking to turn the tables on his former US partner through blaming him for Conch & Coconut accruing more than $1m in unpaid tax arrears in The Bahamas. Asserting that Mr Conde took responsibility for, but never paid, $800,000 in unpaid taxes owed to the Department of Inland Revenue, Mr Gibson said he had complied with the payment plan agreed with the tax authorities.

Conch & Coconut’s operations continued until a second inspection was carried out by the Bahamian tax authorities in May 2025. Tax officials deemed its Business Licence, which had been obtained by Mr Conde, to be “fraudulent” and shut the business down.

Mr Gibson is alleging his former business partner admitted that the Department of Inland Revenue’s findings were correct - a development that led him to “immediately terminate” their relationship.