Litigation Considerations, Part 2: Delaware LLCs
This article—the second in a three-part series examining common features of real estate transactions that can benefit from a litigation analysis in the negotiation phase—focuses on two of those aspects: statutes of limitations and waivers of duties.
October 18, 2022 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
The Delaware limited liability company (LLC) is a popular form of business organization in New York real estate. But parties who choose to use a Delaware LLC to own, manage, or invest in New York real estate need to be prepared for the application of Delaware substantive law to certain aspects of any dispute that may later arise, even if the dispute is litigated in New York. This article—the second in a three-part series examining common features of real estate transactions that can benefit from a litigation analysis in the negotiation phase—focuses on two of those aspects: statutes of limitations and waivers of duties.
|Statutes of Limitations
Parties who choose to use Delaware LLCs to invest in New York real estate projects need to be aware that such use may result in the application of a substantially shorter statute of limitations to claims arising from the investment. In particular, although New York's statute of limitations for breach of contract claims is six years (CPLR 213(2)), Delaware's is only three years. See 10 Del.C. § 8106(a). A claim by a Delaware LLC arising from its investment in New York real estate may be subject to that substantially shorter limitations period.
This is because under New York law a claim based on economic harm is subject to the statute of limitations of the state of the plaintiff's residence, even if the claim is asserted under a contract that is governed by the substantive law of another state. See U.S. Educ. Loan Trust IV, LLC v. Bank of NY Mellon, 179 A.D.3d 447, 448 (1st Dept. 2020).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTurbocharge Growth: How Technology Will Shape a Successful 2025
Fatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readThe Corporate Transparency Act: One Year Later With Deadline Looming
4 minute readThe Elliott Management vs. Southwest Airlines Faceoff: Who Won and What Determined the Outcome?
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Enemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
- 2For Lawyers, the 'Work' of Making an Impact Does Not Have to Happen in a Courtroom. Laura E. Sedlak Says
- 3The Organic Blooms Injunction Is The Latest Blow To New York’s Troubled Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary Program
- 4Be Brave. We Make Our Impact by Never Being Afraid to Advocate for People, Says Jennifer Sellitti
- 5Doing the Right Thing in the Pursuit of Justice Requires Guts, Says Lyndsay Ruotolo
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250