Court Ruling on Jack Nicklaus’ Defamation Case
A Florida appellate court ruled on Wednesday that Jack Nicklaus’ defamation lawsuit against businessman Howard Milstein and Nicklaus Companies LLC can proceed despite a contractual forum selection clause.
Background of the Dispute
Nicklaus and Milstein have been involved in legal disputes in both New York and Florida regarding a complex $145 million transaction from 2007. This deal saw Nicklaus sell his company, GBI Investors, to Milstein, which eventually led to the creation of Nicklaus Companies.
Details of the Transaction
In the deal, GBI Investors licensed Nicklaus’ intellectual property and managed his golf course design ventures. Several agreements were involved, each specifying New York or Florida as the applicable jurisdiction for disputes. However, tensions arose over business decisions, particularly concerning IP licensing, leading to Nicklaus’ resignation from the board of Nicklaus Companies in 2022.
Current Legal Proceedings
That same year, Nicklaus Companies filed a lawsuit against GBI Investors and Nicklaus in New York for multiple claims, to which a judge affirmed that Nicklaus retained licensing authority for his IP. The ongoing New York litigation remains active.
Accusations of Defamation
In his Florida lawsuit, Nicklaus claims the defendants made defamatory statements that damaged his reputation, particularly regarding his meetings with Golf Saudi in 2021. He argues that he rejected their proposals due to concerns about his legacy with the PGA Tour and denies that Milstein or Nicklaus Companies influenced his decision.
Assessing the Court’s Decision
Judge Spencer D. Levine confirmed the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the case, stating the LLC agreement did not apply to claims of defamation. He noted no connection existed between Nicklaus’ claims and the original LLC agreement concerning business matters.
Statements from Nicklaus Companies
A representative from Nicklaus Companies emphasized that the appellate court’s ruling focused solely on the venue for the trial and did not affirm any factual claims. The company maintains that the allegations against Nicklaus are unfounded and hope for a resolution that respects his legacy.
“We still hold that hope,” the spokesperson stated, “and are confident the jury will support our position once all evidence is presented in court.”
