The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

AN UNDERWATER explorer owned by Walker’s Cay’s proprietor saw its multi-billion treasure hunting “trade secrets” misappropriated by a former contractor although it failed to show it suffered harm from more lurid and “scandalous” accusations.

Judge Reed O’Connor, the North Texas federal court’s chief judge, on October 21, 2026, found there was “a preponderance of evidence to support the allegation by Allen Exploration and its multi-million dollar owner, Carl Allen, that Maritime Research & Recovery and its principal, Dan Porter, had failed to return a “search database” for a wrecked Spanish galleon in Bahamian waters.

He added, in a 68-page ‘findings of fact and conclusions of law’ which has been seen by Tribune Business, that Maritime Research & Recovery (MRR) had violated the confidentiality agreement that it had signed with Mr Allen and his exploration outfit by retaining its proprietary data.

And Judge O’Connor, in finding there was no joint venture deal between the two parties, also dismissed claims by Mr Porter that Allen Exploration had defamed his reputation in a series of letters sent to high-level government officials, including the Immigration Director and the National Museum of The Bahamas director.

The October 18, 2024, e-mail to the museum director was sent by Dr Michael Pateman, at the time curator and director of Allen Exploration’s Grand Bahama-based Bahamas Maritime Museum, but now executive chairman of the Antiquities, Monuments and Museums Corporation (AMMC) with effect from August this year according to a posting on its Facebook page.

Mr Pateman’s e-mail had accused Mr Porter “of misappropriating company funds and dishonest conduct”, while a November 22, 2024, letter written to the director of Immigration by another Allen Exploration executive made claims about the MRR chief “stealing from the company, violating several aspects of Bahamian law and mistreating his staff”.

Judge O’Connor said Mr Porter’s defamation claim could not be sustained because the allegations were “all true”, adding: “The court already found that by a preponderance of evidence plaintiffs did misuse company funds, use crew for personal work and violate Bahamian law, even though they may have been minor or non-material.”

However, in a mixed decision over the dispute that erupted over treasure hunting and recovery from the wreck of the Nuestra Senora de la Maravillas, the Spanish galleon that sank on the Little Bahama Bank in 1656 with an estimated $1.5bn worth of valuables in today’s figures, Judge O’Connor ruled that these same Bahamian law violations had minimal impact on MRR’s contract fulfillment.

He found that claims MRR and Mr Porter engaged in the smuggling of undeclared goods into The Bahamas, in breach of Customs laws and duty payments, were unproven. As for “scandalous” allegations that illegal narcotics were smuggled into The Bahamas, the judge added that these claims - even if true - caused “no loss or damage” to Allen Exploration or performance of MRR’s contract with it.

Allen Exploration had made numerous assertions that MRR had breached its contract by failing to perform, including by “using vessels rented by Allen Exploration for Dan Porter’s personal use and circumventing Bahamian customs and import duties, and using Allen Exploration credit cards to pay for goods for Dan Porter’s personal use”.

Much of the allegations surrounded a Freeport house built by Mr Porter for his daughter, and which MRR used as a base of operations in the treasure search related to the sunken Spanish galleon. Claims were made that boats and fuel paid for by Allen Exploration were used to provide electricity for the house.

“Defendants [Mr Allen and Allen Exploration] also claim that Dan Porter improperly used money that was intended to be used to pay the Government for multiple work permits,” Judge O’Connor wrote. “Their only evidence in support is that the permits were not obtained until they brought in a consultancy firm, Bahamas Nautical Group, to get the permits instead.

“That consultancy firm is owned by Neal Albury, who provided payroll services to Allen Exploration, operated out of Nassau and dealt with Immigration. He testified that the reason he was brought on was not attributed to Dan Porter. Instead, it was Allen Exploration complaining about the time it was taking to obtain permits.

“Moreover, Neal Albury was never contacted by Allen Exploration to investigate any of the allegations related to work permits. Because there is no further evidence in support, defendants failed to meet their burden on this issue.”

Allen Exploration then alleged that its vessel’s crew built the Freeport house using its funds. “In support, Gavin Roberts testified that ‘we’ve done work on his personal whaler. We’ve done work on the house itself, putting up windows. We built his guest house, including the pool table, the shelving, the laundry room and even some of the upstairs woodwork’,” Judge O’Connor recalled.

“They were not paid by Dan Porter to do any of this work. He said some of this occurred on bad weather days, but not all. Alex Barret corroborated these claims, testifying that Dan Porter had them do construction work personally at the house. Alex Barrett testified that he used a Bobcat to get gravel from a neighbour’s driveway to turn it into concrete.

“Both Alex Barrett and Gavin Roberts testified that crew helped work on the dock for a neighbour’s house, the Dirkes’ house. Alex Barrett testified that under Dan Porter’s direction, he dove eight feet down the water column to repair the dock, and that he did not feel safe doing the job. He claimed this ultimately damaged the hydraulic pump on” on one vessel.

However, Mr Porter’s daughter and other witnesses countered that Mr Porter hired a contractor, yard crew, electricians and workers to work on the house. Judge O’Connor said that, based on Roberts and Barret’s testimony, “some if not all of those stories” about vessel crew working on the house were true, but there did not represent “a material breach” of the deal with Allen Exploration.

“Second to last, defendants claim that Porter used the crew to aid in smuggling undeclared items into The Bahamas. Gavin Roberts, Kenton Dickerson, and Alex Barrett (crew members) all testified that on at least one occasion, Dan Porter instructed them to aid in smuggling what they believed to be undeclared items into The Bahamas to avoid paying taxes,” Judge O’Connor said.

“Gavin Roberts testified that Dan Porter put the crew on what seemed to be lookout duty to avoid Bahamian Customs. At night, they would clear a path for him on the Boston Whalers so he could unload furniture for the guest house, equipment, power tools and a push mower.

“Kenton Dickerson testified that they unloaded Bobcat tires and furniture, and flooring, for the guest house. Alex Barrett’s testimony was the same. Both Kenton Dickerson and Gavin Roberts testified that Dan Porter did not check in with Bahamian Customs, instead checking in with them afterwards,” the judge added.

“But the crew could not testify to where Dan Porter got the items, which matters if they are allegedly undeclared. In fact, Dan Porter would often request items from Allen and would get them from Allen’s boat - the Axis - and load them on to his boat. And it is unlikely that Dan Porter was taking the boat to Florida - a seven-or eight-hour trip one way - and back to get undeclared items.

“It is more likely that he was making trips to Allen’s boat. The court draws two conclusions from this evidence. First, it is unlikely that the furniture was smuggled. Next, it is likely something else was on the boat that caused Dan Porter to place the crew on lookout.”

Allen Exploration, though, had better luck with its “trade secrets” claim. Judge O’Connor wrote: “Defendants allege Dan Porter retained and misused Allen Exploration’s confidential search database, including the Marx archives, directed a contractor to retain the data, and retained the ability to generate forged certificates of authenticity. The Court finds these allegations are true.

“The confidentiality agreement prevented Dan Porter, acting as an agent of MRR, from disclosing confidential information and required him to destroy that confidential information at the request of Allen Exploration. On October 7, 2024, Preston Paine sent Dan Porter a letter requesting he comply with the confidentiality agreement by destroying all confidential information.

“The same day he also sent a letter to Tyrell Armstrong, who maintains the Allen Exploration database, requesting that he comply with the agreement and destroy all confidential information. Dan Porter testified at trial that he was retaining the information pursuant to the advice of his former counsel.”

Judge O’Connor found that, based on e-mail evidence supplied by Allen Exploration, “by a preponderance of the evidence, defendants established that Dan Porter used the Marx files in violation of the confidentiality agreement in violation of Allen Exploration’s trade secrets”.

He added that there was nothing to back Mr Porter’s claim that the data was already publicly available, and found: “Based on the foregoing, defendants established their claim that Dan Porter breached the confidentiality agreement and misappropriated a trade secret” under Texas law.

“Dan Porter, MRR, their sub-contractors and representatives are required to immediately return or destroy all of Allen Exploration’s confidential material in their possession, custody and control,” the judge added.