22SMCV02485

Assigned for all purposes to: Santa Monica Courthouse, Judicial Officer: H. Ford III

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/30/2022 09:25 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Parenteau,Deputy Clerk

1 Richard S. Busch (SBN 319881)

E-Mail: rbusch@kingballow.com
2 Mindy H. Lewis (SBN 324158)
E-Mail: mlewis@kingballow.com
3 Mark L. Block (SBN 115457)
E-Mail: mblock@kingballow.com
4 KING & BALLOW LAW OFFICES
1999 Avenue of the Stars; Suite 1100
5 Century City, CA 90067
Tel: (424)253-1255
6 Fax: (888)688-0482
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff LONDON CALLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10

11 LONDON CALLING ENTERTAINMENT, Case No.

INC., a California Corporation;
12 COMPLAINT FOR
Plaintiff, MONETARY DAMAGES
13
v.
14
NKSFB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
15 company, MICHAEL OPPENHEIM, and Does
1 through 50,
16
Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
17

18

19 Plaintiff LONDON CALLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Plaintiff” or “London Calling”),

20 by and through its attorneys of record, hereby alleges its Complaint against Defendants NKSFB, LLC

21 ( “NKSFB”), Michael Oppenheim, and Does 1 through 50 (collectively “Defendants”), as follows:

22 INTRODUCTION

23 1. As discussed fully below, this lawsuit is brought due to the blatant and brazen theft

24 by Defendants of Plaintiff London Calling’s novel idea for popular mainstream artist and band clients

25 to obtain a grant under a specific government program created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

26 and administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”). Although, as discussed below,

27 Defendants and others believed that their popular mainstream artist and band clients would not qualify

28 for a grant under this SBA program, Plaintiff, through its principal, Laurence Leader, figured out
1
COMPLAINT
 1 differently. After London Calling was successful in obtaining SBA grants for its own popular
2 mainstream artist and band clients, and immediately after submitting an application on behalf of a
3 client of NKSFB, Mr. Leader disclosed in detail and in confidence to NKSFB’s partner and principal
4 Michael Oppenheim, and the Defendants at a meeting at Defendants’ office requested specifically by
5 Mr. Oppenheim, his novel idea for obtaining SBA grants for popular mainstream artist and band
6 clients under this SBA program. Defendants, through Mr. Oppenheim and other agents, acknowledged
7 and understood they were receiving this idea in confidence, and Mr. Oppenheim was told directly that
8 London Calling was only disclosing this idea in consideration of being paid a fee of 15% of the total
9 amount of the awarded grants of Defendants’ clients should its idea be successfully used.
10 2. This novel idea presented was initially met with skepticism by Mr. Oppenheim, as
11 well as by the managing Partner of NKSFB, and other agents of NKSFB who clearly opined that they
12 did not think it was possible, but ultimately, at the conclusion of Mr. Oppenheim’s requested meeting,
13 where Plaintiff detailed his idea, Mr. Oppenheim stated NKSFB would consider the idea and get back
14 to Plaintiff. After London Calling’s presentation, however, Mr. Oppenheim went “radio silent” as to
15 whether London Calling’s idea would be exploited by NKSFB and its partners and agents for the
16 benefit of its clients. Specifically, in response to an inquiry by London Calling’s principal, Laurence
17 Leader, about the status of the matter, Mr. Oppenheim wrote back that they were considering what to
18 do with Plaintiff’s novel idea “as a firm,” (emphasis added) and would get back to him. Defendants
19 never did.
20 3. Plaintiff London Calling later discovered that Defendants gave NKSFB partners,
21 employees, and agents permission to disclose Plaintiff London Calling’s novel idea to dozens of
22 Defendants’ popular mainstream artist and band clients and had utilized Plaintiff London Calling’s
23 idea to obtain over $200 million in SBA grants for its clients. Defendants thereby stole Plaintiff’s
24 novel idea, breached their implied-in-fact contract with Plaintiff, and breached London Calling’s
25 confidence, and thus is liable to London Calling for at least $30 million in damages (15% of the $200
26 million in awarded grants). Due to the willful and malicious breach of confidence, Plaintiff also seeks
27 punitive damages in an amount to be determined.
28
2
COMPLAINT
 1 PARTIES
2 4. Plaintiff LONDON CALLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., formerly known as L2
3 Consulting Inc. through which Laurence Leader conducted all relevant business with the Defendants,
4 is a California corporation authorized to do business and doing business in the State of California,
5 County of Los Angeles, at all times material hereto. Laurence Leader is the sole shareholder of
6 London Calling.
7 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant NKSFB is a Delaware limited liability
8 company authorized to do business and doing business in the State of California, County of Los
9 Angeles, at all times material hereto. NKSFB is a subsidiary of NASDAQ publicly traded company
10 Focus Financial Partners Inc., which as of the date of this Complaint has a market capitalization of
11 approximately $3 billion. NKSFB lists their corporate headquarters as 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Los
12 Angeles, CA 90024. NKSFB acts through its partners, principals, agents, and employees, who, as
13 alleged herein, and within the scope of their employment and duties, directed, ratified, and conspired
14 to steal Plaintiff’s novel idea, breach Defendants’ implied in fact contract with Plaintiff, and breach
15 Defendants’ obligation of confidentiality toward Plaintiff, all of which makes NKSFB liable to
16 Plaintiff directly as well as through principles of respondeat superior.
17 6. Defendant Michael Oppenheim is a Partner in NKSFB, and at all material times
18 was acting as a partner, principal, agent, and/or employee of NKSFB, directing, ratifying, or
19 condoning the acts or omissions of other partners, principals, agents or employees of NKSFB, many
20 of whom are presently unknown to Plaintiff but who conspired to steal Plaintiff’s novel idea, breach
21 Defendants’ implied-in-fact contract with Plaintiff, and breach Defendants’ obligation of confidence
22 to Plaintiff.
23 7. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through
24 50, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are presently unknown to Plaintiff
25 London Calling, and Plaintiff London Calling therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
26 names. Plaintiff London Calling will amend its Complaint to substitute such true names and capacities
27 when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff London Calling is informed and believes that each of the
28
3
COMPLAINT
 1 fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences and damages alleged
2 herein.
3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
4 8. The principal of Plaintiff London Calling, Laurence Leader, has worked in the
5 entertainment and sports business for more than 40 years. Mr. Leader began his career as a concert
6 promoter and agent, working for one of the premiere European organizations of the time. He
7 subsequently became an agent at Triad Artists (later bought by the William Morris Agency, which
8 later merged with Endeavor to form WME). Among the many artists Mr. Leader represented in
9 international tour negotiations were Whitney Houston, George Michael, and Tina Turner. After
10 promoting the Bolshoi Ballet, managing the U.S. Formula One Grand Prix and subsequently
11 intellectual property rights worldwide for Formula One Management, Mr. Leader became a senior
12 agent at ICM (now part of CAA), where he represented the agency’s Live Event & Concert clients
13 internationally and liaising with all other departments (including film, television, and literary) to
14 exploit opportunities for clients both internationally and in the United States, for talent ranging from
15 Aretha Franklin, George Benson, Mary J. Blige and Chaka Khan to Al Pacino and Jeff Goldblum,
16 and producers of major Marvel/Disney projects. Mr. Leader is currently an independent entertainment
17 and sports entrepreneur. Mr. Leader has known Defendant Oppenheim for nearly 40 years.
18 The Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program
19 9. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the SBA introduced the Shuttered Venue
20 Operators Grant Program (“SVOG Program”).1 The SVOG Program was designed to financially
21 support qualifying performing arts businesses negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The
22 categories eligible for participation in the SVOG Program are: live venue operators or promoters,
23 theatrical producers, live performing arts organization operators, museum operators, motion picture
24 theater operators, and talent representatives.
25

26
1
The SVOG Program is found in Section 324 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits and Venues
27 Act ("Economic Aid Act") signed into law on Dec. 27, 2020. It is part of H.R. 133 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021 and Grants for Shuttered Venue Operators; the American Rescue Plan Act, signed into law on March 11, 202l,
28 including SVOG amendments under Title V, Sec. 5006 to the Economic Aid Act.
4
COMPLAINT
 1 10. After already having distributed substantial funds in an initial grant phase of the
2 SVOG Program, the SBA announced on August 11, 2021 that it was opening applications for
3 supplemental grants, with a cut-off date of August 20, 2021.
4 Plaintiff Determines That Popular Mainstream Artists And
5 Bands Are Eligible To Participate In the SVOG Program
11. As discussed below, Defendants and at least one other prominent business
6
manager, believed that popular mainstream artists and bands were not eligible to participate in the
7
SVOG Program. This conclusion was based, in part, on the belief that neither popular mainstream
8
artists nor bands were expressly mentioned in any of the categories eligible for participation in the
9
SVOG Program. Laurence Leader was told this directly, and so were London Calling’s clients.
10
Indeed, in at least one case, a respected business manager sent a document to one of London Calling’s
11
clients stating specifically that they were not eligible for the SVOG Program. Mr. Leader told him
12
confidentially otherwise as part of their joint representation of said client and under London Calling’s
13
confidentiality agreement with the client.
14
12. As noted, Defendants likewise believed artists were not eligible. Plaintiff advised
15
the world renowned singer-songwriter and performer Paul Anka (composer of the iconic “My Way”
16
performed by Frank Sinatra among many other musical compositions), that London Calling had a
17
novel idea that would allow Mr. Anka’s loan-out company to qualify for the grant, and that London
18
Calling would prepare all necessary paperwork, liaise with the SBA, and submit the application in
19
exchange for a 10% commission (Plaintiff offered Mr. Anka the 10% commission rather than 15%
20
due to their relationship). However, Mickey Segal, the managing partner of NKSFB, and Mr. Anka’s
21
business manager at the time, told Mr. Anka directly that Plaintiff London Calling’s advice was
22
wrong, any application submitted on behalf of Mr. Anka’s loan-out company for a grant under the
23
SVOG Program would not be accepted, and that popular mainstream artists and bands could not
24
benefit from this program. As a result, Mr. Anka did not submit a request for a grant under the
25
program. Mr. Anka also requested that other partners at NKSFB speak directly with Mr. Leader about
26
his novel idea.
27

28
5
COMPLAINT
 Plaintiff London Calling Proves Defendants Wrong By Successfully Obtaining
1
Grants For Popular Mainstream Artists And Bands Under The SVOG Program
2

3 13. Mr. Leader came up with the idea that loan-out companies for popular mainstream

4 artists and bands could qualify to receive SVOG Program grants under the “performing arts

5 organization operators” category. After researching the SVOG Program, Mr. Leader found that the

6 SBA definition of “performing arts organization operators” is “any entity (including a theatrical

7 management business) whose principal business activity is to create, produce, perform, and/or present

8 live performances for audiences in qualifying venues, including amphitheaters, concert halls,

9 auditoriums, theatres, clubs, festivals, and schools”. Also, it included performing with an amplified

10 sound, or performing in front of an audience that paid money for tickets in qualifying venues. Mr.

11 Leader concluded that this description would fit the precise definition of loan-out companies for

12 popular mainstream artists and bands so that these companies could qualify for grants under the

13 SVOG Program.

14 14. As discussed in detail below, Plaintiff met with Defendants on July 22, 2021. Prior

15 to that date, SVOG Program grants had been awarded to certain of Plaintiff’s clients based upon

16 applications prepared and submitted by Plaintiff on its clients’ behalf. In June, 2021, prior to its

17 meeting with Defendants, Plaintiff London Calling began preparing a SVOG Program grant

18 application for one of NKSFB’s jazz artist client’s loan-out company. This loan-out company was

19 subsequently awarded two grants by the SBA: an initial grant of over $6.8 million (on or about

20 August 8, 2021), and a supplemental grant of over $3 million (on or about October 25, 2021).

21 Plaintiff’s written agreement with this client called for Plaintiff to receive 15% commission for his

22 work on this matter, which is Plaintiff’s normal fee (as noted above, he offered Mr. Anka 10% due to

23 their personal history), and Plaintiff received its 15% commission from this client.

24
Plaintiff London Calling Discloses Its Novel Idea To Obtain SVOG Grants For Music Clients’
25 Loan Out Companies To Defendants In Confidence And With The Understanding Plaintiff
Would Be Paid A 15% Commission on Monies Received By The Clients
26
15. Plaintiff London Calling included confidentiality clauses in its consulting
27
agreements with its clients, including with the jazz artist mentioned above. These contracts state that
28
6
COMPLAINT
 1 “[b]oth parties shall keep confidential and not disclose any information [of a proprietary and
2 confidential nature] or the terms of this agreement to any third party.” On or about July 22, 2021, Mr.
3 Leader was at Defendant’s office to meet with his jazz artist client’s day-to-day business manager,
4 who was aware of the aforementioned confidentiality clause, and the other terms of the agreement
5 between the parties, to finalize and submit the loan-out company’s application for a SVOG Program
6 grant discussed in paragraph 14 above.
7 16. On that day, and while still at Defendant’s office, Mr. Leader met with Defendant
8 Michael Oppenheim (“First Meeting”) – as stated, a person Mr. Leader has known for nearly 40 years.
9 Mr. Leader informed Mr. Oppenheim about the reason he was at Defendants’ office, and his novel
10 idea that loan-out companies for popular mainstream artists and bands could qualify for SVOG
11 Program grants through his otherwise unknown interpretation to Defendants of the “performing arts
12 organization operators” category. Mr. Leader told Mr. Oppenheim that he was disclosing this in
13 confidence. Mr. Oppenheim understood and acknowledged that the disclosure of Mr. Leader’s novel
14 idea would be confidential and not disclosed to any outside third parties. Maintaining the
15 confidentiality of this novel idea was of the utmost importance to Mr. Leader, and Defendants were
16 aware of that through both their meetings. There was also the confidentiality clause in the agreement
17 with the aforementioned jazz artist for whom a partner of NKSFB serves as business manager. Mr.
18 Leader also told Mr. Oppenheim that he was to be paid a 15% commission for any artist utilizing his
19 idea once Plaintiff gave disclosure permission.
20 17. At first, Mr. Oppenheim, like Defendant NKSFB’s managing partner Mickey
21 Segal, did not believe in Mr. Leader’s idea for SVOG Program applications for popular mainstream
22 artist and band clients. Indeed, he stated that mainstream popular artists and bands “are not eligible.”
23 Mr. Leader, however, informed Mr. Oppenheim that he had already successfully prepared and filed
24 applications for SVOG Program grants for his own popular mainstream artist and band clients, and
25 had just submitted an application for one, the jazz artist, who was also a client of the Defendant.
26 Again, Mr. Leader specifically told Mr. Oppenheim that he received 15% for this idea, and would
27 expect to be likewise compensated for anyone else who took advantage of his idea. Mr. Oppenheim
28 acknowledged both that term and the confidentiality.
7
COMPLAINT
 1 18. The next day, Mr. Oppenheim called Mr. Leader and specifically requested that he
2 come back to Defendants’ office to present his novel idea for SVOG Program grant applications to
3 Defendants’ employees and agents, and a wider group of Mr. Oppenheim’s colleagues. Mr. Leader
4 agreed, and therefore discussed his idea for SVOG Program applications by popular mainstream
5 artists and band clients to Mr. Oppenheim and approximately six of his colleagues, who worked for
6 NKSFB, by invitation at their office on July 29, 2021 (“Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting”). All of
7 NKSFB’s employees and agents at Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting were agents of NKSFB, and
8 were acting within the course and scope of their employment at all material times. Mr. Leader, on
9 behalf of Plaintiff London Calling, began by obtaining acknowledgement by those present that the
10 idea he would be presenting was confidential. He presented his novel idea at Oppenheim’s Requested
11 Meeting with the expectation and understanding that he would be paid a 15% commission if
12 Defendants used the idea on behalf of one or more of its popular mainstream artist and band clients.
13 As stated above, Mr. Leader had informed Mr. Oppenheim that he expected to receive that
14 commission for anyone taking advantage of his idea, and that the above-referenced jazz music client
15 was being charged 15% of the proceeds received from his SVOG Program application.
16 19. Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting lasted about 30 to 45 minutes. During it, Mr.
17 Leader explained details about the SVOG Program, how he believed it applied to loan-out companies
18 for popular mainstream artists and bands, such as some of Defendants’ clients, and offered to prepare
19 and apply for SVOG Program grants on behalf of Defendants’ clients. Mr. Leader emphasized that
20 time was of the essence, since the SVOG Program grant application window would be closing very
21 soon. Some at Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting not only expressed skepticism, but stated
22 affirmatively that they did not believe it would work. It was clear from their statements that this idea
23 was news to all of them, and something none of them had heard of before.
24
Defendants Through NKSFB’s Partners and Agents Wrongfully
25
Disclose And Use The Idea For Their Popular Mainstream Artist And
26 Band Clients To Apply for SVOG Program Grants And
Evade Plaintiff London Calling’s Inquiries Following Up On The Meeting
27

28
8
COMPLAINT
 1 20. After Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting, Mr. Leader unsuccessfully attempted
2 several times to contact Mr. Oppenheim by telephone, and then sent him an email on or about August
3 6, 2021. In his email, Mr. Leader mentioned certain aspects about the SVOG Program, and
4 emphasized the necessity to start preparing applications as soon as possible given the closely
5 approaching deadline. Mr. Oppenheim replied by email later that day, stating: “Laurence we are
6 discussing as a firm what to do. We will let you know when we come to a conclusion.” Mr.
7 Leader, however, never heard back from Mr. Oppenheim or anyone else from Defendants, except for
8 contact with a representative of NKSFB limited to the SVOG Program application of their above-
9 referenced joint jazz music client’s loan-out company, which Plaintiff London Calling had prepared
10 for submission to the SBA. This single application ultimately succeeded in generating grants to the
11 client of almost $10,000,000.
12 21. Plaintiff London Calling subsequently discovered that Defendants’ clients later
13 submitted SVOG Program applications which were granted by the SBA. Multiple partners of NKSFB
14 and Mr. Oppenheim personally assisted with the filing of Defendants’ clients’ SVOG Program
15 applications. Plaintiff became aware of the Defendants’ chicanery only because he recognized the
16 Defendants’ office addresses as well as various partners’ former addresses - all of which were listed
17 on the SBA SVOG website for its grantees.
18 22. It is obvious that Defendants used London Calling’s novel idea for SVOG Program
19 applications to obtain grants for over seventy (70) popular mainstream artist and band loan-out
20 companies, including but not limited to: 365 Touring International, Inc. (Marshmello), AIC
21 Entertainment (Alice in Chains), Destroyers, Inc. (George Thorogood), Ella Mai Music, Inc. (Ella
22 Mai), Epicfail, Inc. (Deadmau5), G59 Touring, Inc. ($uicideboys$), Genevieve Productions, Inc.
23 (Michael McDonald), Ghetto Youths Tours, Inc. (Damian Marley), Kidd Kash, Inc. (Kyle), La
24 Monarca Entertainment, Inc. (Vampire Weekend), Nickelback Touring 2, Inc. (Nickelback), Prodigy
25 Touring Corp. (Leann Rimes), Ridge Road, Inc. (Melissa Etheridge), Slairie Touring US, Inc. (DJ
26 Flume), Smoking Camels Caravan, Inc. (Perry Farrell of Jane's Addiction) The Smashing Pumpkins
27 Machine, Inc. (The Smashing Pumpkins), Think Common Touring, Inc. (Common), and Young
28 Money Touring, Inc. (Lil Wayne).
9
COMPLAINT
 1 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's misuse of Plaintiff London
2 Calling’s idea and disclosure for its clients to apply for SVOG Program grants under the “performing
3 arts organization operators” category, Defendants obtained SVOG Program grants totaling well in
4 excess of $200 million for at least 70 of their popular mainstream artist and band clients that were
5 eligible to receive them according to the Plaintiff, but not eligible according to the Defendants until
6 persuaded otherwise by London Calling. Defendants’ wrongdoing is thus the proximate cause of $30
7 million in damages to Plaintiff (15% of $200 million in awarded grants).
8 24. While it should not matter even if he was, Mr. Leader was not a stranger to Mr.
9 Oppenheim. As noted throughout, although not close friends, Mr. Leader has nonetheless known Mr.
10 Oppenheim for nearly 40 years. Mr. Oppenheim’s outright betrayal of Mr. Leader’s confidence and
11 theft of his idea, which was solicited when Mr. Oppenheim requested that Mr. Leader present and
12 detail his idea to NKSFB, while then subsequently telling Mr. Leader that Defendants were
13 determining what to do with his idea “as a firm” and would get back to him, without any intention of
14 doing so, and then only to evade and ignore him, makes the conduct alleged herein even more
15 despicable. It also bears mentioning that in a case where Mr. Oppenheim and his partners were sued
16 by the artist 50 Cent, a federal bankruptcy judge remarked on August 29, 2022 that “Mr. Oppenheim
17 and the other professionals at GSO [Mr. Oppenheim’s former firm that merged with NKSFB] showed
18 no curiosity about what special rules might apply to their lucrative client or themselves as
19 professionals retained under provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.” That misconduct apparently
20 continued in this case, with Defendants showing no concern about the rules or laws that apply to their
21 theft of Plaintiff’s idea or breaches of confidence.
22 25. Indeed, shortly before commencing this action, Mr. Leader telephoned Mr.
23 Oppenheim to confront him. In that conversation, Mr. Oppenheim did not deny that Mr. Leader
24 presented his idea to NKSFB at Mr. Oppenheim’s request, and did not deny either that the presentation
25 was supposed to be confidential or that Mr. Leader told him he expected a commission on successful
26 grant applications based upon the amount received by the clients (Mr. Oppenheim claimed to recollect
27 that Mr. Leader told him 10-15%). Mr. Oppenheim admitted that “the firm,” following Plaintiff’s
28 presentation at Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting, gave its partners, employees and agents the
10
COMPLAINT
 1 discretion to prepare and file the grant applications for their clients as they saw fit. Mr. Oppenheim
2 tried to excuse Defendants’ wrongdoing, however, on the ridiculous basis that Defendants did not
3 believe their clients would want to pay Plaintiff the commission (as if someone would give up
4 receiving millions of dollars in U.S. federal government grants merely to avoid paying a commission).
5 This, of course, is no justification for Defendants’ theft of idea, breach of implied contract, or breach
6 of confidence, for which Defendants are liable to Plaintiff.
7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract – Theft of Idea)
9 26. Plaintiff London Calling incorporates by this reference the allegations in
10 Paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive hereof.
11 27. At Defendants’ invitation and request, Plaintiff London Calling presented its novel
12 idea for Defendants’ clients to apply for SVOG Program grants under the “performing arts
13 organization operators” category to Defendant in confidence. Mr. Oppenheim had expressed to
14 Plaintiff that he did not believe successfully applying for the grants was possible during their First
15 Meeting, Mr. Oppenheim’s colleagues, and employees of NKSFB stated the same during
16 Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting. The Managing Partner of NKSFB had affirmatively told Paul Anka
17 that it was not possible, and any submission of paperwork would be rejected. Thus, at the time of
18 Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting, the ability to successfully apply for the aforementioned grants was
19 news to Defendants. It was not until Plaintiff explained in detail his novel idea, and walked Defendants
20 through the mechanics of how it could be accomplished, that Defendant NKSFB, Defendant
21 Oppenheim, and their partners, agents, and employees became aware of the ability to apply for the
22 grant successfully.
23 28. At the time Defendant Oppenheim invited and received Plaintiff London Calling’s
24 idea as to how its clients could successfully apply for grants under the SVOG Program, it knew that
25 Plaintiff London Calling was presenting its idea with the expectation of compensation if Defendants
26 used it. In this regard, Defendants knew that Plaintiff London Calling was charging its clients a fee
27 of 15% of awarded grant monies for its services. Defendants also knew that Plaintiff London Calling
28 would charge Defendants’ clients 15% of the grant monies received. Plaintiff told Mr. Oppenheim
11
COMPLAINT
 1 that directly before being invited to present at Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting at Defendants’ office.
2 Mr. Oppenheim acknowledged that condition and understood it. With that knowledge, Defendants
3 then specifically requested the submission and explanation of Plaintiff London Calling’s novel idea
4 in Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting, and knew that Plaintiff had been paid and would expect to be
5 paid 15% commission of the amounts received by clients if Defendants used the idea on behalf of its
6 clients, after having obtained Plaintiff London Calling’s consent to do so.
7 29. Defendants then used Plaintiff London Calling’s novel idea on behalf of certain of
8 its popular mainstream artist and band clients without London Calling’s consent or knowledge.
9 Defendants did not independently develop or learn of the idea, or the mechanics of it, and its likelihood
10 of successful application for grants under the SVOG Program prior to Plaintiff London Calling’s
11 detailed presentation of the novel idea to Defendants. Mr. Oppenheim claimed when confronted that
12 Defendants did so because they did not believe their clients would have wanted to pay Plaintiff’s
13 commission.
14 30. Plaintiff London Calling’s idea for popular mainstream artist and band clients to
15 apply for SVOG Program grants under the “performing arts organization operators” category had
16 value at the time Plaintiff London Calling presented the same to Defendants.
17 31. By disclosing and using Plaintiff London Calling’s idea for popular mainstream
18 artist and band clients to apply for SVOG Program grants under the “performing arts organization
19 operators” category without Plaintiff London Calling’s permission or consent, Defendant stole
20 Plaintiff’s idea, and breached its implied-in-fact contract with Plaintiff London Calling.
21 Consequently, Defendants were able to procure on behalf of more than 70 of its clients SVOG
22 Program grants in excess of $200 million. On information and belief, Defendants also unfairly
23 received commissions themselves and/or other things of value at the expense of Plaintiff through their
24 theft of idea, and breach of their implied in fact contract, and should be required to disgorge any and
25 all profits obtained.
26 32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of its implied-in-fact
27 contract with Plaintiff London Calling, Plaintiff London Calling has been damaged in an amount in
28 excess of $30 million according to proof at trial (15%. Of $200 million). In addition, and if required
12
COMPLAINT
 1 in the alternative, Defendants have been unjustly enriched through the receipt of commissions and
2 other things of value, and profits, all at the expense of Plaintiff, which Defendants should be required
3 to disgorge.
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Breach of Confidence)
6 33. Plaintiff London Calling incorporates by this reference the allegations in
7 Paragraphs 1 through 32, inclusive hereof.
8 34. Plaintiff London Calling conveyed novel information concerning the ability and
9 likelihood of popular mainstream artist and band clients obtaining SVOG Program grants under the
10 “performing arts organization operators” category to Defendants at Defendants’ instance and request.
11 35. Defendants knew that Plaintiff London Calling’s novel idea as to how popular
12 mainstream artist and band clients could successfully apply for SVOG Program grants under the
13 “performing arts organization operators” category was conveyed in confidence. Indeed, both
14 Defendants and Plaintiff London Calling understood that Plaintiff London Calling’s idea was to be
15 maintained in confidence, as plaintiff said so to Mr. Oppenheim directly at the First Meeting, and to
16 those at Oppenheim’s Requested Meeting. The confidentiality was also mentioned in the written
17 agreement between Plaintiff and one of defendant’s clients mentioned above.
18 36. Defendants breached their confidence by disclosing and using Plaintiff London
19 Calling’s idea on behalf of more than 70 of their popular mainstream artist and band clients without
20 Plaintiff London Calling’s knowledge or consent. Indeed, Defendants attempted to hide their
21 disclosure and use of the idea from Plaintiff London Calling. Mr. Oppenheim told Plaintiff in an email
22 that Defendants were deciding what to do following the Oppenheim Requested Meeting “as a firm,”
23 but then secretly and deliberately, and maliciously stole Plaintiff’s novel and confidential idea for the
24 benefit of its clients.
25 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-alleged breach of
26 confidence, Plaintiff London Calling has been damaged in an amount in excess of $30 million,
27 according to proof at trial. In addition, and if required in the alternative, Defendants have been
28
13
COMPLAINT
 1 unjustly enriched through the receipt of commissions and other things of value, and profits, all at the
2 expense of Plaintiff, which Defendants should be required to disgorge.
3 38. Defendants’ above-alleged breach of confidence was committed by Defendants
4 with malice, oppression and/or fraud, and Plaintiff London Calling is therefore entitled to an award
5 of punitive or exemplary damages. In this regard, Defendants actually requested Plaintiff London
6 Calling to disclose its idea, knowing that Defendants were receiving this idea in confidence, and then
7 intentionally proceeded to steal Plaintiff London Calling’s idea without its knowledge or consent,
8 knowing that Plaintiff London Calling would suffer damage as a result. Defendants then attempted
9 to hide its disclosure and use of the idea from Plaintiff London Calling. For all of the reasons
10 discussed above, Defendants’ conduct was despicable. Defendants acted with malice, oppression,
11 and/or fraud, and punitive damages should be awarded in an amount to be determined not only to
12 punish Defendants, but to ensure that this deliberate wrongful action is not repeated in the future.
13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff London Calling prays for relief as follows:
15 1. For an award of compensatory damages in excess of $30 million, according to
16 proof, plus interest thereon at the legal rate, as well as disgorgement of Defendants’ profits;
17 2. For an award of punitive or exemplary damages;
18 3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
19 4. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
20 Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury on all causes of action.
21

22 DATED: November 30, 2022 KING & BALLOW

23
By:
24
Richard S. Busch
25 Mindy H. Lewis
Mark L. Block
26 KING & BALLOW
Attorneys for Plaintiff
27

28
14
COMPLAINT