The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A TOP Bahamian real estate firm is accusing a Briland tourism operator’s ex-business partner of “harassing” it with “threadbare allegations” that it has exploited his “trade secrets” and confidential customer lists to generate eight high-end Harbour Island sales and rentals.

CA Christie and its franchisor, Corcoran Group, in fresh legal filings demanded on Monday that the south Florida federal court block Pablo Conde and his half of the former Conch & Coconut tour operator partnership from “pursuing” discovery against them until he pleads “viable claims” to back arguments they were “unjustly enriched” by their Briland agent’s conduct.

That agent, Julian ‘Shaq’ Gibson, is embroiled in an increasingly bitter legal battle against Mr Conde on both sides of the Florida straits following the messy break-up of their business alliance, which has exposed allegations of illegal ‘fronting’ and more than $1m in unpaid Bahamian taxes. But Mr Conde’s claim that CA Christie was “vicariously liable”, meaning it was responsible, and should assume liability for, Mr Gibson’s alleged Conch & Coconut actions was dismissed on July 10.

However, in that decision, Judge Kathleen Williams gave Mr Conde and Conch & Coconut LLC, the former US half of the Briland tourism partnership, 14 days to cure these and other deficiencies with their case by filing a revised complaint with the south Florida court. Needing no invitation, Mr Conde has done exactly that, coming back with new particulars alleging that CA Christie has exploited, and benefited from, confidential customer lists obtained by Mr Gibson in at least eight transactions.

The US investor alleges he has identified “at least four” Harbour Island properties that have been sold by Mr Gibson, and a further “three active listings that had been rented to Conch & Coconut customers”, as a result of his erstwhile Bahamian partner purportedly improperly obtaining client data. As a result, Mr Conde is hoping this will be sufficient to revive his claims against CA Christie and its franchisor in a case built on allegations of trademark and intellectual property violations.

However, the Bahamian real estate firm, in response to Mr Conde’s latest pleadings, reiterated that they suffer from the same earlier “defects” in that they provide no evidence to show it “directly participated” in the Briland business of the same name, Conch & Coconut Ltd, or the conduct by Mr Gibson that he is complaining of. CA Christie is thus accusing Mr Conde of harassment and demanding that it not be required to provide “costly” discovery over what it branded “baseless” claims.

It added that its, and Corcoran’s, “opposition is rooted in the fact that they have been dragged into this case based on threadbare allegations and overreaching claims, not because plaintiff [Mr Conde] has any legitimate claims against them”. They added that the re-filed south Florida complaint “does nothing to cure the pleading defects dooming all its claims against the Corcoran entities.

“Thus, the Corcoran entities oppose resuscitation of plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery as to them, unless and until this court finds plaintiff has indeed plead viable claims against them. Plaintiff should not be permitted to engage in harassing discovery merely because it has re-filed groundless claims against the Corcoran entities in an amended complaint that is currently operative but will face another.. challenge,” CA Christie and Corcoran asserted.

Judge Williams, in her July 10, 2026, verdict, had ruled Mr Conde had failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his “vicarious liability” claim against CA Christie. And the Bahamian real estate firm, in its July 27, 2026, filings asserted he had “failed to explain how Mr Gibson allegedly used the [Conch & Coconut] marks to further CA Christie interests and how CA Christie in any way controlled or participated in those actions”.

“It suffices here to say that plaintiff has again pled claims against the Corcoran entities that suffer from the same defects as the original ones. Mainly, the claims again are based on conclusory allegations,” CA Christie and Corcoran argued.

“And, while plaintiff attempts to provide certain isolated specifics about Mr Gibson’s alleged real estate actions and how he purportedly used plaintiff’s claimed marks and trade secret information to enhance his real estate endeavours, it does nothing to address the fundamental missing link: Corcoran’s or CA Christie’s knowledge, control or involvement in any of the alleged offending actions.

“Plaintiff’s claims against the Corcoran entities were baseless from the start and continue to be so. The Corcoran entities should not have to engage in harassing and costly discovery…. The amended complaint proves only that plaintiff simply refuses to acknowledge it has no claims against them. Unfortunately, it will now need to be told so for a second time by this court.”

Mr Conde and his Florida-domiciled Conch & Coconut LLC, in the latest version of their complaint, allege: “Gibson, as a real estate agent for Corcoran CA Christie and the Corcoran Group, uses the Conch & Coconut marks to rent, sell or offer to sell or rent real estate properties in The Bahamas to consumers in the US and Florida.”

This, he claims, employs “at least a portion of the Conch & Coconut trade secrets to market for Corcoran CA Christie and the Corcoran Group. Gibson infringed the Conch & Coconut marks, and counterfeited the LLC services, in furtherance of his job at Corcoran CA Christie, and to the benefit of Corcoran CA Christie and Corcoran Group….

“Gibson runs both his real estate services for Corcoran CA Christie and his infringing concierge business under the [Conch & Coconut Ltd] out of the same office – the Bungalow, in order to expose the LLC’s customers to his real estate services,” Mr Conde alleged.

“Gibson has further sold properties to, and listed properties for rent, for Conch & Coconut customers, and after breaching and misappropriating Conch & Coconut’s trade secrets.

“Gibson has sold at least four properties - Tickled Pink, Luna Sea, the Playhouse and Rosebud - and has at least three active listings that had been rented to Conch & Coconut customers through the Conch & Coconut platform - Java Estate, Sea Breeze Villa and White House Villa. Gibson will continue to market his real estate services for Corcoran CA Christie and Corcoran Group using Conch & Coconut’s misappropriated trade secrets.”

Mr Conde repeated his allegations that CA Christie has been “unjustly enriched” by being given access to “at least a portion” of his confidential Conch & Coconut customer lists “to generate real estate business and leads” for the company. “The LLC’s customer list is a valuable trade secret resource that Gibson can, and has, used as a Corcoran CA Christie real estate agent to market Corcoran CA Christie’s services to the LLC’s customers,” he claimed.

“Additionally, in July 2025, CA Christie listed Rosalita House as new short-term rental listing, whose owner is a Conch & Coconut customer who were listed and uploaded by Gibson to his real estate marketing spreadsheet on May 30, 2025. Rosalita House expressly does not list Gibson, in an apparent effort to hide Corcoran CA Christie’s intentional use of the misappropriated Conch & Coconut trade secrets.

“Accordingly, Corcoran CA Christie has been unjustly enriched by Gibson’s post-May 2025 closing of real estate transactions on the Tickled Pink, Luna Sea, the Playhouse and Rosebud properties, and/or will be unjustly enriched when real estate transactions close for Java Estate, Sea Breeze Villa, White House Villa and Rosalita House,” Mr Conde further alleged.

“Thus, Corcoran Group is vicariously liable for Gibson’s theft of Conch & Coconut’s trade secrets and ongoing trademark infringement of the Conch & Coconut marks. Gibson further operates the infringing activities under the Bungalow in the same office he operates his real estate services for Corcoran CA Christie, benefiting Corcoran CA Christie by marketing their services using the goodwill of the LLC and to the LLC’s customers.

“Corcoran CA Christie is vicariously liable for the tortious and unlawful actions, including Gibson’s trademark infringement and misappropriation of the LLC’s trade secrets as a real estate agent of Corcoran CA Christie and for the benefit of Corcoran CA Christie.”