ARTICLE
31 August 2016

Chancery Declines To Toll Statute of Limitations Based Upon Mutual Running Account And Continuing Wrongs Tolling Doctrines

PF
Pierson Ferdinand LLP

Contributor

Pierson Ferdinand strives to provide excellent legal counsel and representation to clients worldwide from 20+ key markets in the US and UK. We specialize in handling complex legal matters and providing solutions to our clients' most pressing needs. Our lawyers come from top global law firms, including Am Law-ranked, regional and boutique law firms, federal and state government careers, and senior in-house counsel roles.
Claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and related relief are not uncommonly met with motions to dismiss if the claims accrued more than three years prior to the misconduct at issue.
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

Claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and related relief are not uncommonly met with motions to dismiss if the claims accrued more than three years prior to the misconduct at issue.  Certain tolling doctrines may serve to toll the standard three-year statute of limitations under 8 Del. C. § 8106.  One such tolling doctrine is the "mutual running account" theory, codified under 10 Del. C. § 8108, which provides: "In the case of a mutual and running account between parties, the limitation specified in § 8106 [three years] of this title shall not begin to run while such account continues open and current."

Another doctrine is one of continuing wrongs or continuing breach, which is "narrow" and "typically is applied only in unusual situations." (Slip op. at 29) (internal citations omitted).  One example where this doctrine is applied is where "plaintiff acquires his stock after a particular transaction has begun but before it is completed."  Desimone v. Barrows, 924 A.2d 908, 924-925 (Del. Ch. 2007).

The recent decision of Am General Holdings LLC v. The Renco Group, C.A. No. 7639-VCS (Del. Ch. Aug. 22, 2016) addressed whether claims were tolled under Section 8108, and also under the continuing wrongs doctrine.  The Court declined to apply these narrow doctrines.  The opinion further clarifies that a plaintiff who idly sleeps on his rights and fails to use monitor one's investment cannot rely upon a tolling doctrine.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More