The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A FRESH battle has erupted over demands that $10m in treasure and historical artifacts recovered from Bahamian waters be shipped to the US to resolve a furious legal fight over these valuables.

Dan Porter, and his Maritime Research & Recovery (MRR) salvage outfit, in legal documents filed on November 8, 2026, is demanding that the North Texas federal court follow through on its initial verdict and appoint a receiver over the multi-million dollar artifacts recovered from a sunken Spanish galleon that wrecked on the Little Bahama Bank some 370 years ago.

He wants Allen Exploration, the underwater explorer owned by Walker’s Cay’s multi-millionaire owner, Carl Allen, to deliver all treasure recovered from the Nuestra Senora de la Maravillas in 2021 and 2022, when MRR was working as one of their contractors, to the US and the court-appointed receiver’s custody so that the latter can determine his rightful 25-30 percent share.

The jewels, gems and other historical artifacts sought by Mr Porter currently sit in Allen Exploration’s Bahamas Maritime Museum in Grand Bahama, and the underwater explorer and salvage operator yesterday promised to “resist” demands that The Bahamas’ newly-recovered cultural and historical heritage be moved to the US.

David Concannon, Allen Exploration’s spokesman and attorney, told Tribune Business in a messaged reply to its inquiries that it will battle Mr Porter’s bid to force the company to “empty the museum” and transfer all its valuables to the US as doing so would also break Mr Allen’s pledge “to keep the artifacts in The Bahamas” to benefit the Bahamian people and create a potential new tourism attraction.

The threatened departure and loss of valuable cultural artifacts, and a possible new source of revenue and wealth for The Bahamas, represents the latest twist in the more than two-year legal battle between Mr Allen and Allen Exploration on one side, and Mr Porter and MRR on the other, following their bitter break-up over salvaging the Nuestra Senora de la Maravillas, which is said to have been carrying a $1.5bn cargo.

Reed O’Connor, chief judge in North Texas, found on October 21, 2026, that Mr Allen and Allen Exploration outfit had breached the agreement with Mr Porter and MRR by failing “to divide treasure that is past due” and wrongly withholding his 25-30 percent share of recovered artifacts after the Bahamian government has taken its cut.

The Government’s agreement with Allen Exploration splits any recovered treasure 25/75 between the two parties, meaning that Mr Porter and MRR’s share is between 25 percent to 30 percent of the latter’s 75 percent. However, the Government gets its share first before any further divisions take place.

The legal documents obtained by Tribune Business reveal that the Government and Allen Exploration have yet to “agree or arrange the share” to be taken from 2023 and 2024 treasure recoveries, thus forcing Mr Porter to focus on 2021 and 2022 in his November 8 filings. His share of treasure recovered during the final two years of his partnership with Allen Exploration can only be determined once the Government division has occurred.

Judge O’Connor’s ruling revealed that $8.86m worth of treasure was recovered from the sunken Spanish galleon in 2021 and 2022 combined, with the Bahamian government receiving a $3m or 33.8 percent total share - higher than the stipulated 25 percent - based on the value of a gold “pendant” it took for its cut.

This left $5.86m or 66.2 percent, with Allen Exploration seeking to first split this 50/50 between a foundation - which the judgment revealed was never set-up - and itself to give each $2.93m. E-mails between members of the Allen Exploration team, including Dr Michael Pateman, recently named as executive chairman at the Antiquities, Monuments and Museums Corporation (AMMC), sought to base Mr Porter’s 30 percent share on the $2.93m - not $5.86m.

This, which the MRR principal is challenging, would have priced his share of the 2021-2022 treasure recoveries at $879,000. Judge O’Connor’s ruling, meanwhile, pegged the total value of 2023 recoveries, for which the split has yet to be agreed with the Davis administration, at $1.436m. The Bahamian government’s 25 percent share was valued at $359,189, and Mr Porter’s at $161,635, with $910,000 split between Allen Exploration and the foundation.

The North Texas chief judge warned that the US court will supervise the division of artifacts recovered from the Nuestra Senora de la Maravillas and “appoint a receiver if necessary” should Allen Exploration and MRR not agree what the latter is due, and this is precisely what Mr Porter is now seeking to enforce after attempts to negotiate an amicable settlement allegedly proved fruitless.

“The court found that defendant Allen Exploration breached its contracts with MRR by refusing to divide the recovered treasure, ordered that MRR receive 30 percent of the post-government recoveries through April 28, 2021, and 25 percent thereafter, and expressly retained jurisdiction ‘to supervise and approve the division and appoint a receiver if necessary’,” Mr Porter, MRR and their US attorneys argued.

“The parties conferred as the court directed, but Allen Exploration refuses to agree to any neutral, equitable division protocol and instead asserts the unilateral right to select which artifacts MRR will receive. A receiver is now necessary.” Mr Porter and MRR asserted that they want a receiver with “authority” to take custody of all treasure found in Bahamian waters in 2021 and 2022, which Allen Exploration “shall produce and deliver”.’

This would require removing all recovered artifacts from Grand Bahama to the US should Mr Porter and MRR succeed. However, Mr Allen and Allen Exploration, in their rival November 8, 2026, legal filings countered that the receiver’s appointment “is not legally justified” and is unnecessary, and that it is Mr Porter and MRR - not themselves - who are unwilling to compromise and reach “a mutually acceptable understanding” on the treasure’s division.

Their position is that this should be based on the two sides’ 2019 services agreement, which governed how this was to be split and formed the basis of MRR’s breach of contract claim, but Mr Porter and his company are arguing that deal does not apply.

Mr Concannon, in his e-mailed reply to Tribune Business, said: “The receiver would be for all of the artifacts recovered from 2021 to 2024, including those provided to Allen Exploration after a division with the Bahamian Government. Allen Exploration is opposing Porter and MRR’s motion for the appointment of a receiver because we do not believe a receiver is necessary.

“Allen Exploration is already complying with the court’s order and preparing a division in accordance with the terms of the 2019 services agreement, which the court said is the agreement that remained in force until 2024. Importantly, the provision dealing with the sharing of artifacts says that, in the event of a disagreement between MRR and Allen Exploration, Allen Exploration has final say over the artifacts to be divided.

“We believe Porter and MRR are trying to avoid the enforcement of this provision, ironically, after they sued to enforce the entire agreement, and open up a negotiation over which artifacts MRR receives that will be decided by someone other than Allen Exploration, despite the language of the agreement.”

Mr Concannon, though, argued that there was a wider issue at stake for The Bahamas when it comes to conserving its cultural and underwater heritage. “There is another consideration at play here,” he told this newspaper. “Porter and MRR are asking the court to compel Allen Exploration to bring all of the artifacts to the US to have the division.

“Allen Exploration will resist this because Carl Allen pledged to keep the artifacts in The Bahamas, and that’s why he has them on display at the Bahamas Maritime Museum in Freeport. Why should Allen Exploration be forced to empty the museum because Porter and MRR do not want to abide by the terms of the agreement they fought to enforce?”

He added that Mr Porter and MRR “are asking the court to compel Allen Exploration to bring all of the artifacts to the US so MRR does not have to import the artifacts themselves”, and said: “This should not be Allen Exploration’s problem.

“The company should not have to incur the risk of loss or damage to the artifacts, or pay for shipping, storage and security, on MRR’s behalf. The place of performance for the parties’ agreement was in The Bahamas, MRR received its last division in The Bahamas, and Allen Exploration believes the next division should occur in The Bahamas.”

Not surprisingly, Mr Porter and MRR disagree, arguing that the receiver and specialists appointed by him should “inventory and value the artifacts” using the method employed by Allen Exploration for the 2020 division. Then they needed to “deliver MRR’s share to MRR and the remainder to Mr Allen”, and obtain the North Texas court’s approval for the split.

The ex-Allen Exploration contractor also argued that the judge’s ruling did not call for specific performance of the 2019 agreement relied on by its former employer. “Instead, Allen Exploration asserts that it — the party the court found breached and found to have used artifact distribution as leverage - holds the unilateral right to choose which artifacts MRR will receive,” it argued.

“Leaving the division to Allen Exploration’s selection would defeat the very remedy the court ordered… The court’s findings describe a defendant that has treated the division as a weapon. Allen Exploration engaged in a ‘unilateral refusal to divide artifacts’; its principal, Carl Allen, declared ‘Dan is getting zero’; Allen Exploration took the position that there was ‘no agreement’ when MRR sought its share………

“The parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding division of the 2021 and 2022 recoveries from which the Bahamian Government has already taken its share. In these conferrals, Allen Exploration advised MRR that Allen Exploration and the Bahamian Government have not yet agreed or arranged the share to be taken by the Bahamian Government from 2023 and 2024 recoveries.”

Asserting that Allen Exploration, as the party found in breach, should not have final say over which artifacts it receives, MRR alleged: “The court’s own findings establish that Allen Exploration will frustrate MRR’s recovery if left in control of the division. To wit: Allen Exploration refused to divide, declared ‘Dan is getting zero’, [and] used the division to extort the surrender of plaintiffs’ vessels…

“What remains is the selection of which specific artifacts will satisfy MRR’s 30 percent and 25 percent point entitlements, and that is precisely the step that must be administered by a neutral, under the court’s supervision, to ensure MRR receives a fair, representative share and the full compensation the court ordered rather than whatever the breaching party chooses to hand over.

“Third, the artifacts are unique and in the sole possession of Allen Exploration and Mr Allen outside the US, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of this court. There is a real danger that, left to Mr Allen and Allen Exploration’s discretion, MRR will receive the least valuable items, diminishing in substance the share the court awarded, or worse, that non-parties could intervene physically with the in-specie artifacts depriving MRR of any artifacts,” it added.

“This motion concerns the 2021 and 2022 recoveries. MRR’s share of the 2023 and 2024 recoveries may be addressed under the court’s retained jurisdiction after divisions are completed between Allen Exploration and the Bahamian Government.

“MRR requests this court order Allen Exploration and Allen to provide it and MRR monthly status reports on progress being made on that Bahamas/Allen Exploration-Allen division which is a prerequisite to MRR receiving its rightful share of treasure.”

Allen Exploration, though, alleged that Mr Porter and MR had “spurned” all negotiations and elected to push for the receiver. “The receiver motion suggests that defendants were the ones unwilling to work towards a mutually acceptable division of artifacts; that is demonstrably false,” it argued.

“Defendants remain willing to negotiate towards a mutually acceptable understanding of the specific artifacts MRR should receive. Unfortunately, however, defendants now anticipate that court intervention will likely be required to resolve that issue. Defendants’ position is that, absent an agreement on the artifacts MRR should receive, the division protocol outlined in the services agreement between Allen Exploration and MR should control.”

Allen Exploration said that, although it “remains willing to negotiate over the specific artifacts to be conveyed, if MRR continues its refusal to negotiate or if no agreement can be reached, the governing contract empowers Allen Exploration, not a receiver, to make the final decision.

“To be clear, Allen Exploration fully intends to convey artifacts sufficient to satisfy the value-sharing percentages established by the court’s findings, and it will apply those sharing percentages to the corpus of dividable assets established by the records admitted at trial,” the underwater explorer said.

“But the contract MRR chose to sue upon does not entitle MRR to receive any particular artifact. And when it comes to determining which specific artifacts should be conveyed, the contract provides a clear procedure: The parties must attempt to reach an agreement and, if no agreement can be reached, Allen Exploration decides.

“Having spurned negotiations, MRR cannot complain about the contractual fall-back. And MRR’s breach of contract claim cannot give rise to more relief than is contemplated by the contract.”

Justice O’Connor’s original verdict did not go all Mr Porter and MRR’s way. For he found they breached the confidentiality deal signed with Mr Allen and misappropriated “trade secrets” by wrongly retaining - and refusing to return - his exploration business plan.

And the judge also dismissed Mr Porter’s claims that Allen Exploration had defamed his reputation through letters written to the director of the National Museum of The Bahamas and Bahamian Immigration director, accusing him of “misappropriating company funds and dishonest conduct” and of “stealing from the company [and] violating several aspects of Bahamian law”.

Mr Concannon, responding to Tribune Business inquiries about progress made in returning Allen Exploration’s “trade secrets”, as the judge had ordered, or alternatively having Mr Porter and MRR destroy what is in their possession, said: “The return or destruction of Allen Exploration’s confidential information is an ongoing issue….

“We believe we will likely need the court’s assistance to obtain a full accounting of who had or has access to Allen Exploration’s confidential information, what they did with it, and where it is now.”