Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

1

William E. Peterson, Bar No. 1528


Janine C. Prupas, BarNo.9156

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.


50 W. Liberty Street, #510
Reno, Nevada 89501
Telephone: 77 5-785-5440
Facsimile: 77 5-785-5441
Email: wpeterson@swlaw.com
Email: jprupas@swlaw.com

Attorneys

2
a

r Plaintiff

IN THE NINTH ruDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DOUGLAS

9
10

ROBERT DAISLEY,
11

t2
13

t4

Case No.:

Plaintiff,

Dept. No.:

vs

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

BLIZZAP.D MUSIC LIMITED (US) and


JOHN MICHAEL OSBOURNE,

15

Defendants.

t6
COMPLAINT

17
18

Plaintiff Robert Daisley ("Daisley"), by and through his attomeys, files this Complaint

t9

against BlizzardMusic Limited ("BlizzardUS") and John Michael Osbourne (ooOsboume")

20

(together "Defendants"). In support of his causes of action, Plaintiff states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

2T

22

l.

Plaintiff Daisley is one of the co-authors for songs on one of the most famous hard

23

rock albums of all time, Blizzard of Ozz. The album reached multi-platinum status in the 1990s

24

and features well-known tracks, including

25

Train" is regularly heard in sports arenas all around the world and has been featured in many

26

television shows, movies, commercials, and video games. Daisley also co-authored songs on the

27

band's second album, Diary of a Madman,whchwas released in 1981 and also enjoyed

28

considerable success.

*Crazy Train" and ooMr. Crowley." The song "Crazy

2.

For the past 35 years, the copyrights to the songs co-authored by Daisley have

been administered by Osbourne and his affiliated companies in England and the United States,

both called Blizzard Music Limited. These entities made all of the decisions regarding the

commercial exploitation of the songs from the Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madman albums

and were responsible for paying royalties to Daisley.

3.

Despite the fact that the songs on the two albums were instrumental in making

Osbourne an international rock star, Daisley has been deprived of his rightful compensation by

Osbourne and his company Blizzard US.

4.

Although royalties have been paid over the years to Daisley, Plaintiff leamed from

in20l4 that Osbourne and his company

10

an audit

11

Plaintiff in the United States.

l2

5.

'When

had been improperly withholding income from

Daisley's representatives confronted Osbourne's representatives, they stated

13

thatBlizzard US was an independent subpublisher, which was entitled to a separate payment for

t4

its services. But Plaintiff had never seen or approved any agreements entitlingBlizzard US to a

l5

separate percentage of fees beyond the l0%othatBlizza

T6

accountants and lawyers also prevented Daisley or his representatives from reviewing the

l7

licensing agreements with third parties involving songs he wrote, claiming that he did not have the

18

right to access those documents or the books and records for Blizzard US.

t9

6.

UK was entitled to receive. Osboume's

Prior to this revelation, Daisley had understood that Osbourne had two separate

20

companies to administer the copyrights, one in England and one in the United States, but did not

2I

lcnow that Osbourne had directed those companies to deduct additional administrative fees before

22

distributing royalties to Daisley.

23

7.

In addition to their improper withholding of excess fees, upon information and

24

belief, Defendants have failed to pay Daisley his rightful share of royalties owed under the

25

publishing agreements for the many commercial exploitations of the songs on Blizzard of Ozz and

26

Diary of a Madman. Inthese instances, Defendants have failed to account to Plaintiff altogether

27

and distribute royalties.

28

8.

To learn that Osbourne andBlizzard US had intentionally deprived them of

income under the guise of separate companies was to learn that Osbourne had intended to defraud

Daisley of his rightfut share of income by hiding behind sham corporate entities.

g.

As a result of Defendants' collective actions, upon information and belief, Plaintiff

has been deliberately deprived by Defendants of more than two

owed to him.

PARTIES AND OTHER KEY ENTITIES

7
8
9
10

million dollars in royalties income

10.

Ptaintiff Daisley is

a professional bassist and music composer

who resides in

Elanora Heights, Australia.

11.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Blizzard US is aNevada corporation

1l

located at P.O. Box 3600, Stateline, NV 89449. BIizzardUS also trades under the name Kord

T2

Music. BlizzardUs is a wholly-owned subsidiary ofBlizzard Music Limited, a company that was

13

incorporated in December 1981 in London, England. ("BlizzarduK").

t4

12.

Defendant Osboume, professionally known as Ozzy Osboume, is the President,

15

Treasurer and Director of BLizzard US. Osbourne was the lead vocalist on the Blizzard of Ozz and

r6

Diary of a Madman albumsand currently performs as a solo artist. Upon information and belief,

t7

Osbourne resides in Malibu,

18

13.

California. Osbourne also owns

99o/o

of the

shares in Blizzard

UK.

Non-party Newman and Company is a company based in London, England that is

19

operated by Colin Newman ("Newman"). Newman and Company serves as the accountant for

20

BlizzardUK, and upon information and belief, BlizzardUs

2l

the auditor for Blizzard UK and is the Secretary fot Blizzard US.

22

14.

as

well. Newman has also

served as

Non-party Randy Rhoads was a co-author for the compositions on the Blizzard

of

23

Ozz and Diary of a Madma albums and was the guitarist for Osbourne's band. He passed away in

24

1982, andupon information and belief, members of his estate continue to receive royalty

25

statements for Rhoads' share of the compositions on both albums.

26

27

15.

Non-party Lee Kerslake is a drummer and music composer for some of the

compositions on the Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madman albtms.

28
J

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I
2

16.

Defendant BlizzardUS was incorporated under the laws of Nevada in 1981 and

maintains a registered agent care of Corporation Services of America , 27 6 Kingsbury Grade, Suite

104, Stateline, Nevada 89449.

6
7

17.
18.

Defendant Osbourne is the President, Treasurer, and Director of Blizzard US.


Defendants are authorizedto conduct business in the State of Nevada, and this

Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. $ 14.065.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

l0

Ptaintiff Meets Osbourne and They Release Blzzrd of Ou

19.

Daisley, Rhoads, and Osbourne began working together in late 1979 after

11

Osbourne left his previous band, Black Sabbath. Under the direction of manager Don Arden

t2

Jet Records, they formed a band called

13

t4
15
T6

20.

of

"theBlizzard of Ozz."

The majority of the first album was written by guitarist Randy Rhoads and bassist

Daisley in Wales with Osboume contributing to the vocal melodies.

21.

The track list for the resulting album, Blizzard of Ozz, contains the following

compositions (togethe r "Blizzard Compositions")

t7

a,

I Don't Know

18

b.

Crazy Train

19

c. Goodbye to Romance

20

d.

Dee

2l

e.

Suicide Solution

22

f.

Mr. Crowley

23

g. No Bone Movies

24

h.

Revelation

25

i.

Steal Away (the Night)

26

27
28

ooCrazy
Looking at Me (Looking at You)" originally appeared as a B-side of the
Train" single, but later appeared on the Blizzard of Ozz album as bonus material.

t The song o'You

22.

I
2

Osbourne shared songwriting credit with Daisley and Rhoads on the Blizzard

Compositions with the exception of "Dee," which was composed solely by Rhoads.

23

Kerslake j oined the Blizzard of Ozz towards the end of the creative process in

March 1980 for the band's first album. Of the tenBlizzard Compositions, Kerslake co-authored

"No Bone Movies" and "You Said It All."2

24.

6
7

is a twenty-five percent author of "No Bone Movies."

25.

9
10

Daisley is a one-third author of each of the Blizzard Compositions, except that he

The group was named "TheBlizzard of Ozz" before a management decision was

made to credit the album solely to Ozzy Osbourne. The album Blizzard of Ozz was released in
1980.

26.

11

The album tracks "Crazy Train" and "Mr. Crowley" from Blizzard of Ozz werc

in 1980. Upon information

and belief, "Crazy Train" peaked at number 9 on

T2

released as singles

13

Billboard's Top Tracks chart that year. In January 2009, the song achieved

t4

certification status.

27.

15

Overall, Blizzard of Ozz

\ryas a

a 2 times Platinum

commercial success from its initial release and has

U.S. The album has sold over 6,000,000 copies to date

T6

been certified 4 times Platinum in the

t7

worldwide, making it Osbourne's best-selling album. Upon information and belief, the album

18

was the first of four Osbourne albums to attain Silver certification (60,000 units sold) by the

19

British Phonographic Industry, achieving this status in August

20

achieved Quadruple Platinum status according to RIAA.

2t

Now Performing as Ozry Osbourne, the Group Releases a Second


Album - Diary of a Mdman

22

28.

23

24

1981

As of August

1997 ,

it

Building on the success of the Blizzard of Ozz album, the four members of the

band collaborated on Diary of a Madman,which was released

in

1981.

25
26
27
28

The song "You Said It All" was written during the 1980 tour and recorded live; as a result, no
ooYou
Said It All" was
studio veriion exists and it did not appear on the Blizzard of Ozz album.
released on a 1980 E.P. and subsequently used as bonus material on CD releases. The writers of
the song were Rhoads, Daisley and Kerslake and Osbourne.
5

29.

The track list for Diary of a Madman contains the following compositions

(together o'Madman Compositions")

a.
b.

c. You Can't Kill Rock and Roll

d.

Believer

e.

Little Dolls

f.

Tonight

g.

S.A.T.O.

10

h.

Diary of a Madman

1l

30.

Over the Mountain

Flying High Again

Daisley, Rhoads and Kerslake wrote the Madman Compositions. Daisley and

t2

Rhoads co-authored every one of the Madman Compositions. Kerslake co-authored every one

13

ooYou
Can't
the Madman Compositions, with the exception of

T4

l5
T6

l7
18

I9
20

31.

Kill Rock and Roll" and ooBeliever".

Primarily based on his public role in the band, Osbourne shared songwriting credit

with Plaintift Rhoads and Kerslake on the Madman Compositions.

32.

Together theBlizzard Compositions and the Madman Compositions are the

Disputed Compositions in this litigation.

Plaintiff Assigns Copyrights to Blizzard UK in Exchange for


Distribution of the Publishing Income

33.

Each one of the Disputed Compositions is subject to a songwriter agreement

andBlizzardUK. Plaintiff executed form contracts with boilerplate

2I

between the individual author

22

language that were made available by the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers

23

in 1980 ("songwriter Agreements").

24

of

34.

& Authors

Daisley assigned his author share of the copyright for the Blizzard Compositions

25

toBlizzard,UK on July 1, 1980 ("Daisley Blizzard Agreements"). From that date to the present,

26

BIizzardUK has acted as the publisher and administrator for Daisley's share of the Blizzard

27

Compositions.

28
6

35.

Relying on his rights under U.S. copyright law, Daisley terminated this assignment

of rights toBlizzardUK under the Daisley BlizzardAgreements on May 18,2015, and those

terminations

4
5

will

36.

be effective on May 30,2017.

On February 1, 1981, Daisley assigned his author share for the Madman

Compositions to Blizzard UK (the "Daisley Madman Agreements").

37.

Relying on his rights under U.S. copyright law, Daisley terminated his assignment

of rights toqlizzardUK under the Daisley Madman Agreements on May 18, 2015, and those

terminations

9
10
11

will

38.

be effective on May 30,2017.

Upon information and beliel Rhoads and Kerslake also assigned their copyright

interest in the Disputed Compositions to Blizzard UK in or around 1980 and 1981.

39.

Since Plaintiff, Rhoads and Kerslake executed the assignments in l9Sl,Blizzard

I2

UK has administered the copyrights for the Disputed Compositions and has been responsible for

13

collection and distribution of royalties to Plaintiff. The royalties are earned through the

l4

commercial exploitation of the Disputed Compositions in all formats, including, but not limited to:

15
16

t7

a.

Synchronization licenses through the combination of audio and visuals;

b.
c.

Digital distribution through sales and streaming services;


Public performance licenses (by distributing income earned from individual
country performing rights societies);

18

t9

d.

Mechanical royalties from album sales; and

20

e.

ooCommercial Exploitation").
Print licenses (for the sheet music) (together,

2r

40.

Synchronization licenses in particular are a lucrative type of Commercial

22

Exploitation. These licenses are individually-negotiated contracts between the publisher and third

23

parties, such as movie or television production companies, and often involve the payment

24

substantial fees, which depend in part on the percentage of the composition used and the

25

anticipated audience for the final creative work.

26

41. Under each of the Songwriter

of

Agreements for the Disputed Compositions,

27

BlizzaUK is required to o'pay or cause to be paid to the Composer/Author in respect of

28

work. .. 90 per cent.. . of all gross royalties and other payments received by the Publisher in
7

said

respect of sound recordings, piano rolls, and all other devices for audibly and visual reproducing

the said work for sale or hire in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland."

42. In the case of income earned through Commercial Exploitations in the United
BlizzardUK was required to pay Plaintiff "90 per cent... of all monies

States and other territories,

received in respect of the right to record the said work on sound tracks for use with

cinematograph, television and other films, and to the right to use the said work (whether pre-

recorded or not) in any television of other programme."

8
9
10
11

43.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Osbourne relied upon DefendatttBlizzard

US to serve as the publisher for the Disputed Compositions in the United States, including the
Commercial Exploitation of the Disputed Compositions.

44.

Since the execution of the Songwriter Agreements,Blizzard UK provided royalty

twice ayear. Those statements are required to represent accurately

12

statements to Plaintiff

13

payments in accordance with the terms of the Songwriter Agreements, as follows:

T4

a.

"o/oRCVD" in the statement);

15

t6

b.

l7
18
T9

That$lizzard UK received 100% of the agreed-upon license fee (denoted as

The share to be allocated to the recipient for the specific Disputed Composition
(denoted as "oSHARE" in the statement); and

c. The royalty rate applied (denoted as "ROYo/o").

45. Plaintiff is dependent on these representations in the royalty statements since

20

Defendants andBlizzard UK are responsible for negotiating contracts with third parties and

2I

collecting payment for the Commercial Exploitations of the Disputed Compositions.

22

The Commercial Success of Blizzard. of Ou and Dry of a Madman


Leads to Continued Demand for the Compositions

23

24
25

26

46.

Over the past 35 years, the Disputed Compositions have remained valuable

musical properties and have been utilized in new Commercial Exploitations year after year.

47.

In2002,both Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madmanwere re-issued after the

27

removal of Daisley's and Kerslake's original bass and drum tracks by Osbourne and his wife,

28

Sharon Osbourne. In May 2011, Sony Legacy released its Deluxe 30th Anniversary Editions
8

of

Blizzard of Ozz with the original bass and drum tracks restored. These

Diary of a Madman

album re-issues reaffirmed the popularity of the Disputed Compositions.

4
5

48.

and

*Crazy Train" has become a staple of classic rock radio playlists. The song, in

particular its opening chords, has also become a ubiquitous fixture in U.S. sports arenas.

49.

Daisley has won the ASCAP award for most played song in the United States for

"Crazy Train" five times for the years: 2005,2008, 2010,2011, and20l2.

been used in television programs, movies and video games in recent years.

50.

*Crazy Train" has also

Examples of synchronizationlicenses that involvedooCrazy Train" include the

following:

10

a.

The Osbournes (television show on MTV);

11

b.

Guitar Hero (videogame);

t2

c. Megamind (motion Picture);

t3

d.

Magic Mike (motion Picture);

t4

e.

Nitro Circus (NBC sPorts show);

15

f.

The Office (U.S. television show); and

t6

g.

The Simpsons (television show).

I7

51.

Several of the Disputed Compositions are also featured in public spaces and

18

therefore earn fees from public performance organizations worldwide. The use of "Ctazy Train"

T9

in sports stadiums and arenas is an example of a public performance.

20

52.

As the publisher for the Disputed Compositions,Blizzard UK is required to

2T

maintain all of the agreements relating to the Commerciat Exploitations. Under the direction of

22

Osbourne, BlizzardUK has refused to provide the agreements for inspection and copying, even

23

though BlizzardUK has represented a value for these licenses in every one of the royalty

24

statements that have been delivered to Plaintiff.

25

53.

Plaintiff has attempted to request information about Commercial Exploitation

26

handled by BlizzardUS, but has been unable to obtain that information as Blizzard US appears to

27

the have the same staff, including attomeys, as

BlizzatdUK.

28
9

54.

2
J

The royalty statements themselves do not provide sufficient detail to conduct a

reliable, comprehensive and independent investigation of the Commercial Exploitations.


Concerns About Royalties Paid Eventualty Results in an 2014 Audit
Which Reveals Serious Discrepancies

55.

By late 2}l3,Plaintiff expressed concerns about royalty statements and the

amount of compensation received as a result of the Commercial Exploitations of the Disputed

Compositions.

56.

I
9
10

As the accountant forBlizzard UK and the head of the company that distributes

the royalty statements, Newman has represented to

Plaintiff and his accounting and legal

representatives that the statements reflected all the monies owed on the Commercial Exploitations.

57.

11

In or around February 2}l4,Audit Time, LLC ("Audit Time"), on behalf of

l2

plaintiff, attempted to conduct

13

Disputed Compositions.

t4

58.

a comprehensive inspection

of the books and records for the

In response to an Audit Time's email inquiry, counsel forBlizzatd UK, Sheridans,

15

asserted that*allrelevant documentation was made available" during an audit in2007, including

I6

information about synchronization income. The Sheridans attorney also explained his clients were

t7

..under no obligation" to make books available for time periods that had already been reviewed in

18

2007.

t9
20

2t

59.

No agreement exists between BlizzardUK and Plaintiff that limits his rights to

review the license agreements and financial statements relating to the Disputed Compositions.

60.

No agreement exists between Defendant BlizzardUs and Plaintiff that limits his

22

rights to review the license agreements and financial statements relating to the Disputed

23

Compositions.

24
25

26

61.

After several delays due to BlizzardUK's lack of cooperation, Audit Time was

able to review some books and records of Blizzard

62.

UK in London in April 2014 (*2014 Audit").

The 2014 Audit revealed that Defendants improperly deducted fees from the gross

27

amounts received on Plaintiff s behalf for the Commercial Exploitations of the Disputed

28

Compositions.
10

63.

UK deducted an extra

15% from gross receipts on Commercial Exploitations negotiatedby Blizzard US.

64.

These improper deductions included the fact thatBlizzard

As a result, only 85% of the gross receipts collectedby Blizzard US for many

of

the Commercial Exploitations were transferred to BlizzardUK.

65

Blizzard UK nonetheless represented to Plaintiff that

85o/o was " 1 00olo"

of the

gross receipts on the royalty statements in the "o/oRCVD" column and concealed from Plaintiff the

fact that Defendants had withheld from Plaintiff an additional l5%o of the royalties otherwise

owed to him.

66. None of royalty statements clearly disclosed these additional deductions of

9
10
11

t2
13

income.

67.

None of the Daisley Songwriter Agreements contained any rights for Blizzard US

orBlizzard UK to undertake these extra deductions.

68.

As Audit Time was unable to review the third-party agreements that Blizzard US

it was unable to calculate the precise

T4

had entered into relating to the Disputed Compositions,

15

amount of lost income or identi$ whether additional, unauthorized deductions have been made.

t6

69.

T7

withheld from

18

70.

t9
20

Audit Time was able to estimate that at least $2,000,000 had been fraudulently
P

laintiff.

On October 2,2014, representatives of Daisley raised these concems about

fraudulent conduct with Sheridans.

71.

In addition to the issue regarding the 15% deduction, the October 2014 letter also

UK had failed to account for numerous synchronization licenses entirely,

2T

stated thatBlizzard

22

despite the fact that they were Commercial Exploitations of the Disputed Compositions.

23

24

72.

October 2,20I41etter from the U.K. law firm Sheridans ("Sheridans Letter").

25

73.

26

a.

27

On October 16,2014, Daisley and his representatives received a response to their

The Sheridans Letter made the following claims:


That "Blizzard Music Limited [is] a U.S. company... lthat] accounts to our client

lBlizzard Music Limitedl in respect of publishing activities in relation to the Songs

28

1l

in the U.S. tenitory and receives a fee of 15%by way of remuneration for the

services provided;"

b.

music publishing industry;"

4
5

c.

That the'oroyalty statements rendered to [Daisley] may not have expressly stated
the amount of overseas sub-publisher retentions;" and

6
7

"[R]etaining a sub publisher on such commercial terms is standard within the

d. "All synchronization

income, which has been received by our client, has been

accounted to your client in accordance with the terms of the Publisher Agreement

for the period of the audit."

l0

74.

The Sheridans Letter contained several misrepresentations or material omissions of

11

fact, including but not limited to the factthatthe "U.S. company... that accounts to" Blizzatd UK

t2

is in fact its own subsidiary, Blizzard US.

13

75.

Another misrepresentation concerned the existence of a sub-publisher agreement

t4

for Commercial Exploitations in the United States. Plaintiff has never been provided with

15

of any sub-publisher agreement between BIizzardUK and BlizzaUS during the decades of

t6

administration of the Disputed Compositions.

T7

76.

a copy

Upon information and belief, "standard" sub-publisher agreements are for a term

18

of years and would have been renewed at several junctures during Blizzard UK's administration

t9

of the Disputed Compositions.

20

77.

Upon information and belief, "standard" subpublishing agreements require the

2l

sub-publisher to account to the publisher, and by extension the authors, and provide copies of all

22

business conducted by the sub-publisher, including, but not limited to synchronization licenses,

23

correspondences and financial records.

24
25

26

78.

Upon information and belief, BlizzardUK and Blizzard US do not have a

"standard" subpublishing arrangement.

79.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Osbourne directed BlizzardUK (and

27

Blizzard,US) to reject all of Plaintiff s and Audit Time's requests for individual contracts and

28

additional information.

t2

80.

from Plaintiff.

81.

At all relevant times hereto, Defendants concealed their wrongful withholdings

Prior to the receipt of the Sheridans Letter, Plaintiff was unaware that Blizzard US

withheld fuomBlizzard UK and Plaintiff additional income from Commercial Exploitations of the

Disputed Compositions in the United States as a result of a supposed subpublishing agreement.

82.

Defendant Osbourne has used BlizzardUS in order to retain income earned by the

Disputed Compositions in the United States so that he can deprive Plaintiff of earned income from

the Commercial Exploitation of the Disputed Compositions.

83.

Any and all unauthorized deductions of additional income earned through the

10

Commercial Exploitation of the Disputed Compositions benefit Defendant Osbourne directly as he

11

owns and controls bothBlizzard US and BlizzatdUK.

t2
13

t4
15
T6
17
18

84.

By failing to pay all income due to Plaintiff, Osbourne has also failed to account

properly to his co-author(s) under the U.S. copyright law.

BltzzardUK and BltzzardUs are Sham Corporations Controlled By


Defendant and Co-Author Osbourne

85.

Defendant Osbourne is the President, Treasurer and Director of Defendant

BlizzardUS. On or about March l,20l6,Defendant Osbourne became the CEO of Blizzard US.

86.

Upon information and belief, the only other corporate officer of either Blizzard US

I9

orBIizzardUK is Newman. Public corporate disclosures indicate that Newman is the Secretary of

20

Defendant BlizzardUS. Upon information and beliet Newman has also served as the accountant

2l

and auditor forBlizzard UK.

22
23

24

87.

By virtue of his duties on behalf of both entities, Newman is not independent of

Defendant Osbourne.

88.

Upon information and beliet BlizzardUs does not perform any publishing or

25

subpublishing functions for musical compositions beyond the Disputed Compositions and

26

compositions involving Osbourne and his family.

27
28

89.

Upon information and belief, BIizzardUK does not perform any publishing

functions for musical composition authors beyond the Disputed Compositions and compositions

l3

authored or co-authored by Osbourne, compositions involving Osbourne's wife, Sharon Osbourne,

or compositions where Osbourne has contributed a vocal performance.

90.

A database report from ASCAP reflects thatBlizzardUK only

acts as a publisher

for the Disputed Compositions and compositions authored or co-authored by Osbourne,

compositions involving Osbourne's wife, Sharon Osboume, or compositions where Osbourne has

contributed a vocal performance.

gl.

Upon information and belief, BlizzaUS and Blizzard UK share employees.

92.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Osbourne does not maintain corporate

formalities in his operation of Blizzard US.

93.

10

Upon information and beliel the accounting records available publicly for

11

BlizzrdUS show financial inegularities, including income that has not been paid to the authors

t2

of the Disputed Compositions.

94,
95.

13

t4

Given these financial inegularities, BlizzardUs is not adequately capitalized.


Both Blizzard US andBlizzard UK are alter egos of Osboume as both companies

15

exist for the sole purpose of exploiting the Disputed Compositions to the detriment of his co-

r6

authors.

l7
18

96.

Based on his domination and control of the Blizzard US and

BlizzardUK,

Defendant Osbourne is individually liable for the fraudulent activities undertaken by Blizzard US.

F'IRST CAUSE OF'ACTION


(Fraud Aeainst Blizzard US)

T9

20

2t
22
23

97

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 96 as if fully set forth herein.

98.

The Daisley Songwriter Agreements contain a representation from BlizzatdUK

24

thatBlizzard UK would pay Plaintiff "90 per cent. . . of all monies charged by the Publishers for

25

and received from, companies, firms or persons authorised to publish andlor reproduce

26

mechanically the said work in these territories."

27

gg.

Plaintiff does not have

a contractual relationship

28
T4

with Blizzard US.

2
J

4
5

6
7
8

100. BlizzardUs

misrepresented the total amount of income received from Commercial

Exploitation of the Disputed Compositions in the United States.

101. BlizzardUs withheld

money in the United States that it knew should have been

transferred toBlizzard UK and distributed to Plaintiff.

102.

Based on these misrepresentations, royalty statements provided by Blizzatd UK to

Plaintiff reflected an inaccurate percentage of income received.

103. Plaintiff

has no independent mechanism for verifying the accuracy of the income

received on the royalty statements.

104. The failure of Defendants to disclose that the gross amounts received from

10

exploitation of the Disputed Compositions was a material omission as the sole purpose of the

11

BlizzardUS is to administer and commercially exploit the Disputed Compositions in the United

t2

States for the benefit of the authors, including Plaintiff.

13

t4
15

105. Plaintiff

has relied on these material misrepresentations andlor omissions as they

were the only means of learning about the income they had earned.

106.

Defendant BlizzardUs was fully aware that the amounts received from the

t6

Commercial Exploitations were greater than the amounts disclosed to Plaintiff in his individual

I7

royalty statements because the company negotiated the agreements that generated that income.

18

I07.

By misrepresenting the gross amount collected from the Commercial Exploitations

T9

in the United States, BIizzardUS intended for, and desired that, Plaintiff would believe that

20

BlizzaUK

had received t00% of the income received when

2l

108. BlizzardUS's

22

109. As a result of BlizzardUs's fraud, Plaintiff

23

24
25

it had not.

conduct was malicious, fraudulent and in bad faith.


has been deprived of more than $2

million of royalty income.

110. As a result of BlizzardUs's fraud, Plaintiff is entitled to both compensatory and


punitive damages.

26
27
28
15

SECOND CAUSE OF'ACTION


(f,'raud Against Defendant Osbourne)

2
J

111. Plaintiff repeats and realleges

each and every allegation contained in paragraphs

through 110 as if fully set forth herein.

lI2.

Osbourne is a co-author for each one of the Disputed Compositions.

113.

Income earned by the Disputed Compositions is split between Osbourne, Plaintiff,

7
8

9
10
11

I2
13

t4
15
16

Rhoads and Kerslake according to the Songwriter Agreements.

ll4.

BlizzardUS receives the income earned by the Disputed Compositions for

Commercial Exploitations in the United States.

115.

Osbourne owns Blizzard US and holds every single leadership position inBlizzard

US, except for Secretary.

116. Blizzard,US

has no other corporate objective beyond exploiting the Disputed

Compositions and other intellectual property controlled by Osbourne and his family.

II7.

BlizzardUs

has not observed the appropriate corporate formalities during its

nearly thirty-five years of existence.

118. Through his domination of the Blizzard US, Defendant Osboume directed Blizza

t7

US and Newman to deduct additional percentage of gross income received, including the extra

18

l5o/o inunauthorized subpublishing fees, before paying royalties to Plaintiff.

t9

119. Through his control of BlizzardUK, Defendant Osbourne

guaranteed that the

20

unauthorized deductions from gross income received from Commercial Exploitations by Blizzard

2l

US would not be detected by Plaintiff or his representatives.

22

120. Defendant Osbourne is personalty liable for fraud as he abused the corporate form

23

by treating BlizzardUS as a separate entity so that he could claim a larger percentage of income

24

and deprive his co-author

25

Agreements.

26
27

l2I.

Maintaining

Plaintiff

of his share under copyright law and the Songwriter

a corporate

fiction between BlizzaUS and Osboume would

sanction Osbourne's fraud and promote injustice.

28
16

122. Plaintiff

was unaware that Defendant Osbourne had abused the corporate form

order to deprive Plaintiff of income.

I23.

Osboume prevented Plaintiff from discovering the financial irregularities by

directing BlizzardUK, Newman and Sheridans to provide either false documentation that

displayed incorrect accounting information and/or misrepresent facts to Plaintiff.

124. As a result of the Defendant Osbourne's fraudulent conduct

and abuse of the

corporate form, Plaintiff has not received his full entitlement to income from Commercial

Exploitation in the United States.

I25.

9
10

Plaintiff has not received more than $2 million in income as a result of the

Defendant Osbourne' s actions.

126. As a result of BlizzardUs's fraud, Plaintiff is entitled to both compensatory and

11

T2

punitive damages.

13

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION


(Accounting Asainst Defendants)

T4

127. Plaintiffrepeats and realleges

15

t6

each and every allegation contained in paragraphs

128. Defendants

have not provided Plaintiff with the complete and accurate files related

to the Disputed Compositions.

I2g.

T9

Defendants have commingled funds across entities in order to deprive Plaintiff

20

royalties from the Disputed Compositions.

2l

130. Plaintiff requests

an accounting of Blizzard US,

order to assess the precise amount of income owed to Plaintiff beyond the estimated two

23

dollars.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment as follows:

A.

An award of monetary damages for the harm caused by the Defendants'


fraudulent conduct;

27
28

million

PRAYER FOR RELIEF'

24

26

of

BlizzardUK, and Osboume in

22

25

through 126 as if fully set forth herein.

I7
18

in

B.

An accounting of the books and records of Blizzard US and Osbourne;

t7

C.

including reasonable attorneys' fees, interest and costs of suit;

2
J

4
5

An Order granting Plaintiff his costs and disbursements in this action,

D.
E.

An award of punitive damages for Defendants' conduct; and


An Order granting Plaintiff such other and further relief
deem

as this Court may

just and proper.

Dated: August 8,2016

SNELL &

L.L.P

o.1528
9r56
#5t0

7
8

By
9

E
C.

50 w.
Reno, N

10

11

CROWELL & MORING LLP


Alan Howard, Esq.
(pro hac vice application to be submitted)
Elizabeth Anne Figueira, Esq.
(pro hac vice application to be submitted)
igo Nauirotr v"n te, 2oth Floor
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 223 -4000
Facsimile: (2t2) 223 -413 4
ahoward@crowell.com

T2
13

I4
15
16

efigueira@crowell. com

l7

Attorneys
18

r9
20

2l
22
23

24
25

26
27
28
18

for Plaintiff Robert Daisley