Following a two-week federal bench trial, Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor will decide who’s entitled to millions of dollars in treasure recovered from a Spanish galleon off the coast of the Bahamas.
The parties gave their closing arguments Tuesday afternoon in the trial, which started June 22.
Treasure hunter Daniel Porter and Maritime Research & Recovery are seeking $2.5 million worth of treasure, as well as punitive damages that would bring the total award to $8.5 million. The lawsuit accuses Carl Allen and Texas-based Allen Exploration of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and defamation.
In 2019, the Porter and Allen met in the Bahamas, where they discussed Allen’s desire to find the sunken Spanish galleon Nuestra Señora de las Maravillas. The Maravillas sank off the coast of the Bahamas in January 1656. According to records, the registered value of the gold and silver aboard the Maravillas was approximately $5 billion dollars in today’s value.
According to the lawsuit, the pair entered into an agreement under which Allen Exploration was to give Maritime Research & Recovery 30 percent of any treasure or artifacts that Maritime Research recovered and reimburse any related expenses. Allen and Allen Exploration also agreed to give the Bahamian government 25 percent of the treasure and artifacts recovered.
At Allen’s request, the parties’ agreement was modified to reduce Maritime Research & Recovery’s share to 25 percent, according to court documents. The other terms, including the conveyance of artifacts and expenses reimbursed, remained the same.
News of the project’s success reached E. Lee Spence, who used to work with Porter. Spence informed Porter that he had sole rights to the search area and accused Porter of breaching a prior agreement. Spence said he had no intent to sue and instead asked for a job. Porter relayed that message to Allen.
Allen’s counsel, David Concannon of Concannon & Charles, got involved. He told the parties that Spence’s claims were dubious and that the best way to avoid them would be to engage in a “paper” termination of the written agreement between Allen Exploration and Maritime Research & Recovery in favor of an implied agreement under the same financial terms and conditions until Porter and the members of Maritime Research & Recovery could form a new entity with which to enter into a new written agreement with Allen Exploration.
Allen Exploration sent notice to Maritime Research & Recovery that its service agreement and modification were terminated, and Porter claims that Allen agreed to continue their relationship under the same terms and conditions of the April 2021 modified agreement.
However, Porter and Maritime Research & Recovery filed suit after they were allegedly not paid what they were contractually owed.
Porter’s counsel, Miami-based Guy Rubin of The Rubin Firm, began his closing argument Thursday by comparing the men’s situation to John Huston’s 1948 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
“This is what gold can do to a man’s soul,” Rubin told Judge O’Connor.
He said Allen became greedy with power and let his hubris get to him.
Rubin emphasized that Allen and Porter were in a joint venture together and that Allen committed character assassination of Porter — by leveling accusations of theft against Porter to Bahamian government officials — causing him to be unable to find work.
In response to a question from Judge O’Connor about the alleged joint venture, Rubin said that while the termination letter was sent to Maritime Research & Recovery, the parties’ actions and agreements establish a joint venture. But because Porter wasn’t lawfully terminated, Rubin said, that was a breach of contract.
Judge O’Connor asked for more details regarding what the allegedly defamatory statements were and Rubin pointed to the theft allegation made to Bahamian officials and noted Allen had also made public statements about Porter’s prior criminal convictions. Those comments, Rubin said, are evidence of malice and intent to harm.
Concannon told Judge O’Connor in his closing argument that Porter’s counsel during the trial continued to “flip-flop” on whether he is allegedly owed 30 percent or 25 percent of the treasure. He also argued there was no breach in terminating the contract with Porter because his client had been fraudulently induced into entering it based on Porter not disclosing his prior conviction and misrepresenting Maritime Research & Recovery.
Concannon said there was no breach of fiduciary duty because there was no joint venture.
Judge O’Connor asked Concannon if there is a fiduciary duty owed to a joint venture, to which he replied yes. In response to further questioning from the judge, Concannon offered an assessment of the court’s focus.
“I think you’re making this harder than it needs to be,” Judge O’Connor said. “Or you’re afraid I’m trying to trap you, and I am not.”
On rebuttal, Rubin went through the damages his client is seeking. He stated that they are asking for $2.5 million in treasure and other damages, including punitive damages, that would bring the total award to $8,516,156.
Judge O’Connor said he would issue a ruling as quickly as he could.
Todd Norbraten of The Rubin Firm, Jason Wander of Wander Law, James Jacks of Law Office of James T. Jacks, and Richard Kibbey of the Law Office of Richard Kibbey are also representing Porter and Maritime Research & Recovery.
Robert Sayles, Brian Gillett and Eric Halpern of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Christopher Lanza are also representing Allen and Allen Exploration. The case number is 3:25-CV-0744.