Accordingly, even if I found that New York law should apply, there is nothing in this set of facts that would lead me to conclude that application of the Delaware Borrowing Statute would be inequitable.” That is, the totality of the relevant factors does not reveal a strong New York-centric relationship between the parties and the dispute before this Court. Importantly, the court also wrote, “otably, even if I did conclude that New York has the most significant relationship, the preceding analysis shows that that relationship certainly does not dominate the focus of this action. In contrast, the court found New York’s contacts minimal in comparison. The court found that Delaware had the second most contacts Delaware’s contacts included the fact that the transfers at issue were made to Delaware trusts governed by Delaware law and that the trustee of the three trusts is a Delaware entity. The court concluded that Florida had the most significant contacts, which contacts included that the real estate foreclosed on was in Florida and that Florida businesses were involved. But, the court conducted a most significant relationship test and found that Florida and Delaware both had a more significant relationship to the facts of the case than had New York. To get around Delaware’s borrowing statute, the plaintiffs claimed that this case involved an exclusively New York dispute. The court confirmed that the Borrowing Statute should not be allowed to be manipulated to constitute a “sword” to defeat claims that would not be otherwise time-barred. ![]() Where the cause of action originally accrued in favor of a person who at the time of such accrual was a resident of this State, the time limited by the law of this State shall apply.” § 8121), which states “here a cause of action arises outside of this State, an action cannot be brought in a court of this State to enforce such cause of action after the expiration of whichever is shorter, the time limited by the law of this State, or the time limited by the law of the state or country where the cause of action arose, for bringing an action upon such cause of action. The court first examined Delaware’s Borrowing Statute (10 Del. Delaware and Florida’s statute of limitations for fraudulent transfers is four years after the transfer was made or one year after the transfer was or could reasonably have been discovered, whichever is longer. The key issue facing the court was whether New York’s longer statute of limitations controlled (which perhaps would have saved the claims) or whether Delaware or Florida’s statute of limitations applied. ![]() On January 22, 2015, in this case, Vice Chancellor Parsons of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed as time-barred most of the creditor-plaintiffs’ claims against three Delaware asset protection trusts (that one of the beneficiaries herself had created) and the trust beneficiaries.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |