Jack Nicklaus Gets a Win in Court as Judge Tosses Five of Seven Counts in Case vs. Nicklaus Companies

Nicklaus Companies filed suit against Jack Nicklaus last May for violating terms of his $145 million intellectual property sale.

Jack Nicklaus won a significant victory in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York on Wednesday.

In a two-page order, Judge Joel M. Cohen on Wednesday “pruned” the complaint that Nicklaus Companies has filed against the 18-time major champion, dismissing six of the seven causes of action from an amended complaint by Nicklaus Companies, LLC against Nicklaus on Aug. 22, 2022.

Editors Note: Five of the seven counts have been dismissed, while a sixth claim was dismissed in part. The lawsuit against Jack Nicklaus continues to move forward, and the preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from using certain IP assets without approval from The Nicklaus Companies LLC remains in place.

Nicklaus Companies filed suit against Jack Nicklaus last May for violating terms of his $145 million intellectual property sale. According to the complaint, Nicklaus was paid $145 million in 2007 to provide exclusive services and property to the Nicklaus Companies, which over time they say he has failed to live up to or has worked against the company directly. The lawsuit alleged breach of contract, as well as tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty.

Nicklaus Companies’ executive chairman is Howard Milstein, a New York businessman, chairman, president and CEO of New York Private Bank & Trust. The lawsuit is Nicklaus Companies, LLC v. GBI Investors Inc. and Jack W. Nicklaus. Nicklaus is the principal of GBI Investors Inc., an architectural services firm.

The causes of action dismissed by Judge Cohen on Wednesday includes the First and Second Clauses of Action for Breach of the LLC Agreement’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the Third Cause of Action for breach of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, to the extent the claim is based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; the Fourth Cause of Action for tortious interference with contract, and the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action for breach of fiduciary duty.

“We believe Mr. Nicklaus did have a duty, both in the sale of his business and assets to Nicklaus Companies and as a member and owner of the Nicklaus Companies LLC, to act with good faith,” a Nicklaus Companies spokesperson said in a statement. “We look forward to resolving these issues once and for all, and continue to be willing to work collaboratively with Mr. Nicklaus as these matters are considered by the court.”

The court kept the Amended Complaint’s Seventh Cause of Action for breach of the Non-Competition Agreement in place and allowed the defendant, Jack Nicklaus, to file an answer to the amended complaint within 21 days.