The NKSFB lawsuits are a cluster of related disputes involving the country’s largest entertainment business management firm, its partner entity KSFB Management, its corporate parent Focus Financial Partners, Goldman Sachs, and Galway Holdings. The fights center on three things: whether NKSFB can enforce non-compete clauses against departing managers, whether Focus and Goldman deceived KSFB during a failed sale that became a $7 billion take-private of Focus’s parent, and whether a rival firm improperly poached KSFB partners and staff. Courts in California and New York have issued significant rulings, some against NKSFB and some closing out cases in favor of its adversaries.
Two Entities, One Fault Line
Focus Financial Partners acquired NKSFB’s operational assets in 2018, creating the subsidiary NKSFB, LLC. The original partners kept a separate entity, KSFB Management, LLC, which contracts to manage the Focus-owned subsidiary.1The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Business Managers NKSFB Sue to Invalidate Non-Competes That split — one entity owned by the corporate parent, one run by the partners — is what most of the litigation is really about. When you see “NKSFB” as plaintiff in one case and “KSFB” as plaintiff against Focus in another, both are traceable to the same 2018 deal.
Kamemoto v. KSFB Management: The First Non-Compete Ruling
Wayne Kamemoto, a business manager who came to NKSFB when it acquired David Weise & Associates, was terminated on January 8, 2021. NKSFB moved to enforce non-compete and non-solicitation clauses that barred him from competing business management anywhere in the United States.2FindLaw. Kamemoto v. KSFB Management Kamemoto alleged that managing partner Mickey Segal personally called prospective employers to threaten litigation, including a $4 million demand against one firm considering hiring him.3Variety. Wayne Kamemoto Mickey Segal Non-Compete Injunction
He sued in Los Angeles Superior Court in February 2021 under California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, which voids nearly all contracts restraining a lawful profession.4Digital Music News. Wayne Kamemoto NKSFB Lawsuit On April 5, 2021, Judge Robert S. Draper granted a preliminary injunction and denied NKSFB’s motion to compel arbitration. The judge ruled the non-compete clauses “facially void and illegal,” found irreparable harm because Kamemoto could not get hired while firms feared expensive litigation, and rejected NKSFB’s argument that a statutory exception for business sales applied, because Kamemoto was an employee who did not actually own the goodwill or assets said to have been sold.5Digital Music News. Kamemoto Ruling, LA Superior Court Compelling arbitration, the judge wrote, would be “an exercise in futility.”
NKSFB then sought $20 million in damages against Kamemoto through arbitration, alleging he had tried to take employees and 49 clients representing about 21% of the firm’s business.3Variety. Wayne Kamemoto Mickey Segal Non-Compete Injunction
Fifty Partners Sue Focus to Void Non-Competes
On June 7, 2023, roughly 50 NKSFB principals — including Segal, Karlin, Feldstein, Bolno, and most of the firm’s senior leadership — sued Focus Financial Partners in Los Angeles to invalidate non-compete provisions in a July 2022 “amended and restated management agreement.”1The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Business Managers NKSFB Sue to Invalidate Non-Competes
Their argument tracks Kamemoto’s: the restrictions are void under Section 16600 because they are not tied to a business sale. The original five-year non-compete from the 2018 acquisition expired on April 1, 2023, and the partners contend Focus cannot revive a similar restriction through the 2022 management agreement. They also challenge the agreement’s Delaware choice-of-law clause, arguing California’s public policy against non-competes should govern services performed in California.1The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Business Managers NKSFB Sue to Invalidate Non-Competes
As of September 2024, the case was in active discovery before Judge Edward B. Moreton, Jr., with the court narrowing document requests and ordering the plaintiffs to detail search efforts. No resolution has been reported since.6Rulings.law. KSFB Management v. Focus Financial Partners, Tentative Rulings
KSFB v. Goldman Sachs and Focus Financial
By early 2022, KSFB was considering whether to sell or break away from Focus. Focus retained Goldman Sachs, and Goldman agreed to advise both Focus and KSFB on a potential joint sale of the NKSFB unit.7Claims Journal. Business Managers File Fraud Suit Against Goldman Sachs
KSFB later alleged Goldman was simultaneously working on a much larger transaction: a $7 billion take-private acquisition of Focus’s parent by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice. According to KSFB, the joint-sale discussions were used to keep the partners cooperative while the real deal, which excluded KSFB, was finalized. Focus announced the CD&R transaction on February 27, 2023.7Claims Journal. Business Managers File Fraud Suit Against Goldman Sachs
After a Los Angeles filing was dismissed on forum grounds, KSFB refiled in New York state court on February 8, 2024. The complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment, and sought potentially nine-figure damages. KSFB alleged Focus co-founder Leonard Chang received more than $12 million in “golden parachute” compensation and that Goldman potentially earned more than $30 million in fees from the CD&R deal.7Claims Journal. Business Managers File Fraud Suit Against Goldman Sachs
Trial Court Dismissal
On January 22, 2025, Justice Margaret A. Chan of the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division, dismissed the entire complaint. She found KSFB had not identified any specific confidential information that was misused, held that the NDA did not grant KSFB access to Focus’s separate deal materials or block Focus from other transactions, and ruled that reading exclusivity into the NDA would contradict its express terms. On fraud, she pointed to “specific and unambiguous” disclaimers in the engagement letter warning that Goldman might advise on other transactions with conflicting interests. Those written disclaimers defeated any claim of justifiable reliance on alleged oral assurances.8New York Courts. KSFB Mgt., LLC v Focus Fin. Partners, LLC
Appellate Affirmance
KSFB appealed on the contract, implied covenant, and fraud claims. On April 7, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed. The court called the breach of contract allegations “vague and conclusory,” described the implied covenant theory as resting on a “plain misreading” of the agreement, and held reliance on oral statements “unreasonable as a matter of law” given the later written engagement letter. It also rejected a “peculiar knowledge” argument, finding KSFB was a sophisticated party on notice of potential conflicts.9Sullivan & Cromwell. S&C Obtains Appellate Win for Goldman Sachs in M&A-Related Lawsuit Focus and Chang filed a separate stipulation of discontinuance, ending the litigation against all parties.10FindLaw. KSFB Management, LLC v. Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC
The Galway Holdings Poaching Dispute
In 2024, three former NKSFB partners — Craig Brown, Heather Washkuhn, and Daniel Moore — departed and were said to have joined Galway Holdings. KSFB sued in May 2024, alleging Galway misappropriated confidential information from earlier sale discussions and used it to recruit the three partners and other staff.11Citywire. Hollywood Business Managers Sue Galway Holdings for Poaching Employees
The departed partners filed their own claims in aid of arbitration. In September 2024, Judge Moreton denied Galway’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds but compelled arbitration, finding KSFB’s claims against Galway “inextricably intertwined” with the partners’ contractual obligations, which contained arbitration clauses.12Rulings.law. Brown v. KSFB Management, Ruling The New York component was later dropped and the whole dispute moved to arbitration.13Citywire. KSFB and Galway Drop New York Lawsuit, Case Moves to Arbitration
Why California Law Keeps Deciding These Cases
Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code declares that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” The California Supreme Court’s 2008 Edwards v. Arthur Andersen decision foreclosed any “reasonableness” carve-out. A narrow exception under Section 16601 permits non-competes tied to a sale of business goodwill, and NKSFB tried to invoke it in Kamemoto. The court rejected that argument because Kamemoto, as an employee, did not own the assets he had supposedly sold.5Digital Music News. Kamemoto Ruling, LA Superior Court California went further in 2024 with SB 699 and AB 1076, making it unlawful even to attempt to enforce a void non-compete and giving employees a private right of action for damages and fees.
Current Status
As of early 2026, the KSFB case against Goldman Sachs and Focus is fully resolved after the April 2026 appellate affirmance.9Sullivan & Cromwell. S&C Obtains Appellate Win for Goldman Sachs in M&A-Related Lawsuit The 50-partner non-compete case against Focus in Los Angeles has not been publicly reported as resolved and was last known to be in discovery.6Rulings.law. KSFB Management v. Focus Financial Partners, Tentative Rulings The Galway Holdings dispute is in arbitration.13Citywire. KSFB and Galway Drop New York Lawsuit, Case Moves to Arbitration NKSFB continues to operate under Focus Financial, now owned by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, with Mickey Segal as managing partner.14Forbes. NKSFB (Nigro Karlin Segal Feldstein & Bolno)