REDACTED PLAINTIFF v. REDACTED DEFENDANT
December 20, 2010
(Case No. 09-6230 (WHP), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), November 15, 2010
We represent plaintiff in this action against his sister, DEFENDANT 1, as well as her husband, DEFENDANT 2, and their company, DEFENDANT 3, alleging common-law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), centering on the sale of the family business, COMPANY, Inc. After a substantial amount of discovery, we moved for leave to amend the complaint to assert new claims arising from corporate acquisitions made by COMPANY between 1994 and 1999–specifically, that defendants had entered into an undisclosed “finder’s fee” agreement, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and his other siblings (the other shareholders in COMPANY), to compensate themselves in the event the corporate acquisitions were approved. The defendants, represented by a well-respected national firm, opposed the motion to amend, arguing that the Statute of Limitations had run out on the claims asserted. The Court granted our motion. Noting that under applicable law, the limitations period for fraud (or breach of fiduciary duty claims sounding in fraud) is six years from the injury or two years from the date that the facts of the fraud are discovered, whichever is later, the Court held that “Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint raises factual questions as to when Plaintiff possessed information sufficient to put him on notice of the finder’s fees paid to DEFENDANT 3… a classic jury question.” Link to Full Text of Decision
