Skip to main content

$100 Million Lawsuit Gets Tossed Over Statute of Limitations

A recent case from an appeals court involved two heavyweight (i.e., "expensive") law firms, White & Case and Arnold & Porter, fighting over the statute of limitations of a malpractice lawsuit. (The plaintiff originally used another firm.) 

In the case, EB Brands Holdings sued its accountants for malpractice for, among other things, over-stating asset accounts (accounts receivable and inventories), which EB claims harmed and mislead its Board of Directors in making decisions. The agreement said that any lawsuits against the accountants had to be brought within two years of the subject audit report. The lawsuit sought damages of $100 million.

EB first brought suit in New York County, but the lawsuit was dismissed "without prejudice"--meaning EB could've fixed the problems in the complaint and re-filed it. Instead, EB brought a new lawsuit in Westchester County and abandoned its New York County case. But by then the two-year statute of limitations had ended. 

In the Westchester case, the defendant accountants made a motion to dismiss based on the two-year statute of limitations and won. EB appealed the decision, but the appeals court said nope, the two years was up, and no exceptions were applicable. Considering the firepower of their lawyers, I'm sure they argued everything possible. 

Sounds like EB should've stuck with the New York County case!

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more