IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LEBANON COUNTY EMPLOYEES’

RETIREMENT FUND and TEAMSTERS 

LOCAL 443 HEALTH SERVICES & 

INSURANCE PLAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEVEN H. COLLIS, RICHARD W. 

GOCHNAUER, LON R. GREENBERG, JANE E. 

HENNEY, KATHLEEN W. HYLE, MICHAEL J. 

LONG, HENRY W. MCGEE, ORNELLA 

BARRA, D. MARK DURCAN, and CHRIS 

ZIMMERMAN,

Defendants,

 and

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION,

 Nominal Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C.A. No. 2021-1118-JTL

OPINION

Date Submitted: September 23, 2022

Date Decided: December 15, 2022

Samuel L. Closic, Eric J. Juray, Robert B. Lackey, PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., 

Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & 

GROSSMANN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Lee D. Rudy, Eric L. Zagar, KESSLER 

TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Radnor, Pennsylvania; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Eric 

J. Riedel, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New 

York; Frank R. Schirripa, Daniel B. Rehns, Kurt Hunciker, Hillary Nappi, HACH ROSE 

SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP, New York, New York; Gregory Mark Nespole, Daniel 
Tepper, LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP, New York, New York; Brian J. Robbins, Craig W. 

Smith, ROBBINS LLP, San Diego, California; Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Stephen C. Norman, Jennifer C. Wasson, Tyler J. Leavengood, POTTER ANDERSON & 

CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Michael S. Doluisio, Carla Graff, DECHERT 

LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Matthew L. Larrabee, Hayoung Park, DECHERT LLP, 

New York, New York; Michael D. Blanchard, Amelia Pennington, MORGAN, LEWIS & 

BOCKIUS LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Counsel for Defendants.

LASTER, V.C.
Nominal defendant AmerisourceBergen Corporation (“AmerisourceBergen” or the 

“Company”) is one of three major wholesale distributors of opioid pain medication in the 

United States. Over the past two decades, AmerisourceBergen has found itself at the center 

of America’s tragic opioid epidemic. In 2021, AmerisourceBergen agreed to pay over $6 

billion as part of a nationwide settlement to resolve multidistrict litigation brought against 

the Company and the other two major opioid distributors (the “2021 Settlement”). 

AmerisourceBergen has incurred hundreds of millions of dollars settling other lawsuits and 

over $1 billion in defense costs. Those financial figures do not attempt to quantify the 

reputational harm that the Company has suffered, nor the damage from lost opportunities 

or management distraction. Those harms obviously pale in comparison to the human cost 

of the opioid epidemic.

The plaintiffs own stock in AmerisourceBergen. They contend that the Company’s 

directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by making affirmative decisions and 

conscious non-decisions that led ineluctably to the harm that the Company has suffered. 

They seek to shift the responsibility for that harm from AmerisourceBergen to the human 

fiduciaries that caused it to occur. 

The plaintiffs advance two theories of breach. For their first claim, they rely on the 

proposition that corporate fiduciaries cannot consciously ignore evidence indicating that 

the corporation is suffering or will suffer harm. Most plainly, corporate fiduciaries cannot 

knowingly ignore red flags evidencing legal non-compliance. The Delaware Supreme 

Court recognized this theory in Graham v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 188 A.2d 

125 (Del. 1963). In his landmark decision in In re Caremark International, Inc. Derivative 
2

Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), Chancellor Allen explained that Allis-Chalmers 

was not the only path to liability and that corporate fiduciaries also could be held liable if 

they knowingly failed to adopt internal information and reporting systems that were 

“reasonably designed to provide to senior management and to the board itself timely, 

accurate information sufficient to allow management and the board, each within its scope, 

to reach informed judgments concerning both the corporation’s compliance with law and 

its business performance.” Id. at 970. 

In Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362 (Del. 2006), the Delaware Supreme Court combined 

the holdings in Allis-Chalmers and Caremark by stating that directors could be held 

liable if 

[i] the directors utterly failed to implement any reporting or 

information system or controls; or [ii] having implemented 

such a system or controls, consciously failed to monitor or 

oversee its operations thus disabling themselves from being 

informed of risks or problems requiring their attention. In 

either case, imposition of liability requires a showing that the 

directors knew that they were not discharging their fiduciary 

obligations. 

Id. at 370. Since Stone, some decisions have labeled the first theory a “prong-one Caremark 

claim” and the second theory a “prong-two Caremark claim.” For those of us who have 

trouble keeping the two prongs straight, Chancellor McCormick has come to the rescue by 

referring to the second type of claim as a “Red-Flags Theory” or a “Red-Flags Claim.”1

1 See City of Detroit Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Hamrock, 2022 WL 2387653, at *17 

(Del. Ch. June 30, 2022). Using the same functional approach, the first type of claim might 

be called a “Reporting-Systems Theory” or a “Reporting-Systems Claim.” The plaintiffs 

do not advance a Reporting-Systems Claim. They contend that information reached the 
3

As a distributor of opioids, AmerisourceBergen must comply with extensive 

regulatory frameworks imposed by federal and state law. The federal regulatory 

frameworks require that a distributor report any suspicious orders to the federal Drug 

Enforcement Agency (the “DEA”). A distributor must either not fill a suspicious order or 

first conduct due diligence sufficient to ensure that the order will not be diverted into 

improper channels.

For their Red-Flags Theory, the plaintiffs contend that the Company’s officers and 

directors were confronted with a steady stream of red flags that took the form of subpoenas 

from various law enforcement officials, congressional investigations, lawsuits by state 

attorneys general, and a deluge of civil lawsuits. Meanwhile, as the opioid epidemic raged, 

the rates at which the Company reported suspicious orders remained incomprehensibly 

low. The plaintiffs contend that based on those red flags, the defendants knew that the 

Company was violating federal and state laws regarding opioid diversion and needed to 

implement stronger systems of oversight. Yet the Company’s officers and directors 

consciously ignored the red flags and did not take any meaningful action until the 2021 

Settlement. The complaint’s allegations support an inference that the officers and directors 

declined to take action because they did not want to do anything that might imply that their 

earlier actions and policies were inadequate, and they also wanted to preserve their ability 

management team and the directors, and that the fiduciaries consciously ignored it because 

they wanted to use possible fixes to the Company’s order monitoring systems and oversight 

policies as settlement currency.
4

to use possible fixes to the Company’s order monitoring systems and oversight policies as 

settlement currency.

For their second claim, the plaintiffs cite Chief Justice Strine’s pointed admonition, 

made while serving on this court, that “Delaware law does not charter law breakers.” In re 

Massey Energy Co., 2011 WL 2176479, *20 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2011). “As a result, a 

fiduciary of a Delaware corporation cannot be loyal to a Delaware corporation by 

knowingly causing it to seek profit by violating the law.” Id. Chancellor McCormick has 

helpfully described this type of theory as a “Massey Theory” or a “Massey Claim.” See 

Hamrock, 2022 WL 2387653, at *17.

For their Massey Claim, the plaintiffs seek an inference that between 2010 and 2015, 

the Company’s officers and directors took a series of actions which, when viewed together, 

support a pleading-stage inference that they knowingly prioritized profits over law 

compliance. The most telling evidence of intent was a decision in 2015, when management 

proposed and the directors approved a revised order monitoring program (the “Revised 

OMP”). AmerisourceBergen’s existing order monitoring program used static criteria to 

flag orders of interest. The monitoring program called for AmerisourceBergen personnel 

to investigate the flagged orders and, if they still appeared suspicious, report them to the 

DEA. Under its existing program, AmerisourceBergen was already reporting suspicious 

orders at profoundly low rates.

Under the Revised OMP, AmerisourceBergen only would flag orders that both met 

the static criteria and were inconsistent with a particular customer’s dynamic pattern of 

orders. The second trigger meant that if a pharmacy submitted an order that would be 
5

flagged for investigation under the static criteria, but the order was consistent with the 

pharmacy’s recent pattern of orders, then the new system would not flag the order for

review. Management’s presentation to the board included a Venn diagram which showed 

that the new system only would identify for investigation a sliver of the orders flagged 

under the old system. 

With the implementation of the Revised OMP, AmerisourceBergen’s already low 

rate of suspicious order reporting fell to microscopic levels. Between 2014 and 2015, the 

level of suspicious orders declined by 86%. Over the same period, AmerisourceBergen’s 

total orders increased by 8.6%. Between 2015 and 2016, the level of suspicious orders 

declined by another 92%. Over the same period, AmerisourceBergen’s total orders 

increased by another 6.7%.

Prosecutorial investigations, congressional inquiries, and civil lawsuits followed. 

Two congressional reports concluded that AmerisourceBergen failed to identify and 

address suspicious orders as required by federal law. Cities, counties, American Indian 

tribes, union pension funds, and the attorneys general of more than a dozen states sued the 

Company for contributing to the opioid epidemic. The plaintiffs maintain that in the face 

of these problems, the Company’s officers and directors continued to pursue their illegal 

business strategy until the 2021 Settlement. 

The defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims on two grounds. They 

argue that the plaintiffs’ claims are untimely and that the plaintiffs’ allegations fail to 

support an inference of demand futility. 
6

This decision addresses the timeliness defense. When analyzing such a claim, the 

court assumes that the claim is valid. The crux of the defendants’ argument is that even if 

the claim has merit, the plaintiffs have waited too long to bring it.

No Delaware court has addressed the timeliness principles that govern a Red-Flags 

Theory or a Massey Theory. The claims are similar in that they have a starting point when 

the wrongful conduct began, but the wrongful conduct then persists over the ensuing days, 

months, and years as the Company’s officers and directors either continue to consciously 

ignore red flags (the Red-Flags Theory) or continue to employ a business plan that 

prioritizes profits over legal compliance (the Massey Theory).2

Both the Red-Flags Theory and the Massey Theory are equitable claims for breach 

of fiduciary duty. A court does not assess timeliness for those claims by applying the statute 

of limitations. A court applies the doctrine of laches, which considers two factors: 

(i) whether the plaintiff has sued within a reasonable time, and (ii) whether there has been 

any prejudice to the defendants from the amount of time that has passed.

When a plaintiff seeks money damages as a remedy for a breach of fiduciary duty, 

the court looks to the limitations period that would apply to an analogous claim at law. To 

2 For that matter, no Delaware court has addressed the timeliness principles that 

apply to a Reporting-Systems Theory. The claim is also similar in that it necessarily has a 

starting point when the wrongful conduct began, but the wrongful conduct then continues 

over the ensuing days, months, and years as the company’s officers and directors continue 

to consciously fail to implement a reasonable reporting and monitoring system.
7

determine when the analogous limitations period would end, the court must determine 

when a claim accrues. 

No Delaware court has addressed how to determine when a Red-Flags Claim or a 

Massey Claim accrues.3 Delaware decisions have applied three methods to determine when 

claims for breach of fiduciary duty accrue. This decision calls them the discrete act method, 

the continuing wrong method, and the separate accrual method.

The discrete act method applies in the vast majority of cases. When a plaintiff 

contends that fiduciaries have breached their duties by making a specific decision that was 

complete when made, that decision constitutes a discrete wrongful act that causes the claim 

to accrue. To apply the statute of limitations, the court starts from when the decision was 

made, counts forward to determine when the limitations period would end, and checks 

whether the plaintiff filed suit within the limitations period. Tolling doctrines can extend 

the time for filing suit, but once a plaintiff is on inquiry notice, tolling stops, and the 

plaintiff must sue within a reasonable time or the claim will be barred. For a Red-Flags 

Claim or a Massey Claim, the discrete act approach dramatically constrains the 

stockholders’ ability to sue, because an initial decision to ignore a red flag or pursue an 

illegal business plan often will be difficult to detect and will not have discernable 

consequences. But once some information about the decision reaches the public sphere, the 

3 Nor has any Delaware court addressed when a Reporting-Systems Claim accrues. 

Because of the conceptual similarities between a Reporting-Systems Theory and a RedFlags Theory, similar considerations apply. This decision, however, only addresses the 

timeliness principles applicable to a Red-Flags Theory.
8

time for suit begins to run. Any subsequent continuation of the improper conduct is treated 

as the not-separately-actionable implementation of the original decision or the damages 

flowing from it. After the analogous limitations period had passed, the defendants can

continue consciously ignoring red flags or pursuing an illegal business plan without any 

concern about a viable derivative claim. Such a regime would undermine Delaware’s 

system of corporate accountability.

There are two alternatives that Delaware decisions have applied more rarely. One 

approach treats a series of inextricably related decisions and conscious non-decisions as a 

continuing wrong. Under this approach, the wrongful act is not complete, and the 

limitations period does not begin to run, until the continuing wrong ceases. If any portion 

of the wrongful act occurs within the limitations period, then the plaintiff can seek to 

impose liability and recover damages for the entire period covered by the continuing 

wrong. To apply the statute of limitations, the court determines when the wrongful conduct 

stopped, counts forward from that point to calculate when the limitations period ends, and 

checks whether the plaintiff filed suit within the limitations period. Tolling doctrines and 

inquiry notice are irrelevant if the plaintiff sues while the conduct is ongoing or if a portion 

of the conduct occurred within the limitations period, because the plaintiff can sue for the 

continuing wrong as a whole. Tolling doctrines and inquiry notice only come into play if 

the continuing wrong has ceased and the plaintiff did not file suit until after the limitations 

period otherwise would have run.

The other approach treats a series of related decisions and conscious non-decisions 

as a sequence of wrongful acts, each of which gives rise to a separate limitations period. 
9

Under this approach, the plaintiff can seek to impose liability and recover damages for any 

portion of the wrongful conduct where the statute of limitations has not yet run, but not for 

wrongful conduct that occurred earlier. To apply the statute of limitations, the court 

determines when the plaintiff filed suit, looks back from that point over the length of the 

limitations period, and checks whether actionable conduct took place within that period. 

Tolling doctrines and inquiry notice operate in two ways. Similar to a continuing wrong, if 

the conduct has ceased and the limitations period otherwise would have run, then tolling 

doctrines can render the suit timely. Similar to a discrete wrongful act, tolling doctrines 

can extend the actionable period, enabling the plaintiff to recover over a longer time frame. 

Inquiry notice can cut off the ability of a tolling doctrine to extend the actionable period, 

but because the ongoing conduct is treated as a series of separate wrongs, inquiry notice 

does not cut off the plaintiff’s ability to sue for conduct that took place within the portion 

of the actionable period that is unaffected by tolling doctrines.

For the Red-Flags Claim, the separate accrual approach offers a Goldilocks regime 

that falls in between a too-defendant-friendly discrete act approach and a too-plaintifffriendly continuing wrong approach. As discussed at length later in this decision, the 

separate accrual approach best suits the gravamen of the claim and the nature of the harm, 

serves the twin goals of equity and efficiency, and fulfills the policy goals associated with 

statutes of limitations. 

The separate accrual approach could apply to a Massey Claim as well. There are 

many similarities between a Red-Flags Claim and a Massey Claim. Arguably, however, the 

decision to consciously adopt an illegal business plan carries a greater level of culpability 
10

that warrants the application of the continuing wrong doctrine. For purposes of this case, 

the Massey Claim is timely under the separate accrual approach, so this decision need not 

take the additional step of deciding whether the Massey Claim should implicate the 

continuing wrong doctrine. It is sufficient to treat the Massey Claim as raising—at a 

minimum—the same combination of considerations as the Red-Flags Claim and apply the 

separate accrual approach. 

When applying the separate accrual approach within a laches framework, the court 

looksto when the plaintiff began vigilantly pursuing its claims. For purposes of a derivative 

action, that can be when a plaintiff begins seeking books and records. In this setting, the 

act of filing a lawsuit to enforce the books-and-records request is not required, and such a 

requirement would undercut this court’s efforts to encourage stockholders and companies 

to resolve books-and-records requests without litigation. 

In this case, the plaintiffs’ diligent efforts to obtain books and records could support 

using May 21, 2019, as a starting date for the actionable period. The plaintiffs, however, 

are content to use October 20, 2019, so the court uses that date. Using a three-year statute 

of limitations, the actionable period began on October 20, 2016. 

Tolling doctrines do not warrant extending the actionable period further. 

AmerisourceBergen issued disclosures in 2017 and in subsequent years about the quality 

of its anti-diversion program. Under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, those 

disclosures provide a separate basis for extending the actionable period back to September 

30, 2017. The actionable period already extends back to October 20, 2016, so those 

disclosures are immaterial to the timeliness analysis. 
11

Equitable tolling is not available. Stockholders are entitled to rely on the 

competence and good faith of their fiduciaries and need not investigate or sue over the 

slightest indication of potential wrongdoing. But at some point, a steady stream of lawsuits, 

investigations, and other problems will put stockholders on inquiry notice, and they must 

take action. 

In December 2014, a stockholder represented by an entrepreneurial law firm served 

a books-and-records request on the Company and obtained internal documents. In 

December 2015, the law firm sent a litigation demand asking the defendants to sue 

themselves on claims that anticipate the far-better-developed claims that have been asserted 

in the complaint. Even acknowledging that the demands were sent by a frequent and fast 

filing firm that was prospecting for a lawsuit, the letters show that stockholders had enough 

information to be on inquiry notice by December 2015. The plaintiffs needed to start 

pursuing their claims within a reasonable time after 2015. They did not seek books and 

records until 2019 and did not sue until 2022. 

Because of inquiry notice, the plaintiffs cannot rely on equitable tolling to extend 

the actionable period to a date earlier than October 20, 2016. They can still sue for conduct 

and consequences that took place after October 20, 2016, because under the separate 

accrual approach, the defendants’ ongoing refusal to respond to red flags and their 

persistent pursuit of an illegal business plan continued after October 20, 2016, giving rise 

to newly accruing wrongs. 

Having reached these holdings, it becomes relatively easy to conclude that wrongful 

conduct occurred within the actionable period. The defendants’ conduct continued until 
12

AmerisourceBergen entered into the 2021 Settlement. The defendants have argued that 

their conduct was not actionable, but that is a different basis for dismissal than a timeliness 

defense. 

It bears emphasizing that a starting date of October 20, 2016 for the actionable 

period does not mean that evidence from earlier periods is irrelevant. To determine whether 

the Company’s business plan during the actionable period wrongfully prioritized profit 

over law compliance, the court must determine what business plan the officers and 

directors were pursuing. Answering that question requires an understanding of the state of 

affairs leading up to the actionable period. Likewise, to evaluate whether officers and 

directors acted in bad faith by ignoring red flags during the actionable period, the court 

must understand what they knew and understood when they made those decisions, which 

can take into account matters pre-dating the actionable period. For both claims, however, 

liability must turn on what the officers and directors did during the actionable period, and 

damages are limited to harms that the Company suffered during the actionable period.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely is therefore denied. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts are drawn from the complaint and the documents that the complaint 

incorporated by reference. Before filing this lawsuit, the plaintiffs spent two years litigating 

a books-and-records action in which AmerisourceBergen raised a host of defenses, 

including arguments that sought to defend preemptively against the merits of an eventual 

derivative action. The plaintiffs prevailed at the trial level and on appeal. See Lebanon 

Cnty. Empls.’ Ret. Fund v. AmerisourceBergen Corp. (220 Decision), 2020 WL 132752 
13

(Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 2020), aff’d, 243 A.3d 417 (Del. 2020). After that hard-fought and 

resource-intensive victory, the plaintiffs obtained books and records under the terms of a 

confidentiality order which provided that if the plaintiffs relied on the documents in a future 

action, then all of the documents “will be deemed incorporated by reference in any 

complaint subject to the conditions set forth in Amalgamated Bank v. Yahoo! Inc., 132 A.3d 

752 (Del. Ch. 2016), subject to Delaware law.” C.A. No. 2019-0527-JTL, Dkt. 64 ¶ 9 

(Del. Ch. May 8, 2020).

Relying on the incorporation-by-reference condition, the defendants submitted 

sixty-one exhibits in support of their opening brief, plus another seven exhibits in support 

of their reply brief. The defendants ask the court to consider the sixty-eight exhibits when 

evaluating the complaint’s allegations.4

The incorporation-by-reference doctrine does not enable a court to weigh evidence 

on a motion to dismiss. It permits a court to review the actual documents to ensure that the 

plaintiff has not misrepresented their contents and that any inference the plaintiff seeks to 

have drawn is a reasonable one.5 The doctrine limits the ability of a plaintiff to take 

language out of context, because the defendants can point the court to the entire document. 

4 Citations in the form “Ex. — at —” refer to exhibits that the defendants submitted. 

Page citations refer to the internal pagination or, if there is none, then to the last three digits 

of the control number. Citations in the form “Compl. ¶ ___” refer to the paragraphs of the 

complaint.

5 See In re General Motors (Hughes) S’holder Litig., 897 A.2d 162, 169–70 (Del. 

2006); In re Santa Fe Pac. Corp. S’holder Litig., 669 A.2d 59, 70 (Del. 1995); In re 

Gardner Denver, Inc., 2014 WL 715705, at *2 & n.17 (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2014).
14

But the doctrine does not change the pleading standard that governs a motion to dismiss. 

If there are factual conflicts in the documents or the circumstances support competing 

interpretations, and if the plaintiffs made a well-pled factual allegation, then the court must 

credit the allegation. See Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896 (Del. 2002). The 

plaintiffs also remain entitled to “all reasonable inferences.” Id. at 897. Consequently, if a 

document supports more than one possible inference, and if the inference that the plaintiffs

seek is reasonable, then the plaintiffs receive the inference. Id.

At this stage of the proceeding, the well-pled allegations of the complaint are 

deemed to be true. The plaintiffs are entitled to all reasonable inferences that the well-pled 

allegations support. To the extent that factual allegations or documents incorporated by 

reference support competing inferences, the plaintiffs are entitled at this stage to the 

inference that favors their claims.

The factual background for this decision emphasizes matters pertinent to the 

timeliness analysis. It de-emphasizes matters pertinent to the defendants’ alternative 

contention that demand is not futile because the plaintiffs’ claims do not pose a substantial 

threat of liability to at least half of the directors in office when the lawsuit was filed. 

A. AmerisourceBergen And Its Legal Obligations As An Opioid Distributor

Nominal defendant AmerisourceBergen is one of the largest distributors of 

pharmaceutical products in the world.

6 It is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in 

6 The Company conducts its pharmaceutical distribution business through two 

subsidiaries: AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation (the “Drug Company”) and 

AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, LLC (the “Specialty Group”). The Drug Company 
15

Pennsylvania, whose shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker 

symbol “ABC.”

In the United States, AmerisourceBergen is one of the “Big Three” wholesale 

distributors of pharmaceutical products. The other two are Cardinal Health, Inc. and 

McKesson Corporation. AmerisourceBergen and McKesson each control approximately 

one-third of the domestic pharmaceutical distribution market. Cardinal Health controls 

another fifth. 

As an opioid distributor, AmerisourceBergen acts as a middleman between the 

companies who manufacture opioids and the pharmacies that fill prescriptions for opioids.

In its role as a distributor, AmerisourceBergen must comply with the Comprehensive Drug 

Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and its implementing regulations. To obtain 

and maintain a license to distribute opioids, a Company must maintain “effective controls 

against diversion of [opioids] into other than legitimate medical, scientific, research, and

industrial channels.” 21 U.S.C. § 823(b)(1). A distributor must also “design and operate a 

system to disclose to the registrant suspicious orders of [opioids].” 21 C.F.R. § 1301.74(b). 

distributes healthcare products and supplies, including opioids, and provides pharmacy 

management and other consulting services to institutional healthcare providers such as 

hospitals and retail pharmacies. The Specialty Group serves the specialty pharmaceuticals 

market, focusing on products involving biotechnology, blood plasma, and oncology. The 

Specialty Group also provides pharmaceutical distribution and related services to 

physicians and institutional healthcare providers. While important for many reasons, the 

distinctions between AmerisourceBergen and its subsidiaries are not relevant to this 

decision, which refers only to AmerisourceBergen.
16

“Suspicious orders include orders of unusual size, orders deviating substantially from a 

normal pattern, and orders of unusual frequency.” Id.

A distributor must report suspicious orders to the DEA. Once a distributor has 

reported a suspicious order, it must either (i) decline to ship the order or (ii) ship the order 

only after conducting due diligence and determining that the order is not likely to be 

diverted into illegal channels. See Masters Pharm., Inc. v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 861 F.3d 

206, 212–13 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The DEA can suspend or revoke the license of any 

distributor that fails to maintain controls or respond appropriately to suspicious orders. See 

21 U.S.C. § 824.

B. The Ongoing Opioid Crisis

The United States remains mired in an opioid crisis that has spanned more than two 

decades, killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and affected the lives of millions 

more. In the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry pushed to increase the use of 

prescription opioids to treat pain management. Manufacturers created new formulations of 

extended-release opioids, which they marketed as non-addictive and superior to existing 

methods of pain management. Doctors responded by writing more prescriptions for 

opioids, often without appreciating or advising patients about the risk of addiction. See 220 

Decision, 2020 WL 132752, at *2.

Between 1999 and 2014, the sale of prescription opioids in the United States 

practically quadrupled. The medications proved far more addictive and dangerous than the 

pharmaceutical industry had led the nation to believe, and the expanded use of the 

medications led to widespread misuse. As many as 29% of the patients who were 
17

prescribed opioids for chronic pain misused them, and as many as 12% developed an 

opioid-use disorder. Id

The increased levels of opioid abuse had tragic consequences. The Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were nearly 218,000 overdose deaths 

related to prescription opioids between 1999 and 2017. Between 2000 and 2015, the rate 

of opioid overdose deaths in the United States more than tripled. The number of opioidrelated deaths reached 69,710 in 2020, and opioid overdoses comprised the vast majority 

of drug overdoses in the country. 

To help fight the epidemic, the DEA increased its scrutiny of distributors like 

AmerisourceBergen in an attempt to have them fulfill their legal obligations to identify 

suspicious orders and prevent diversion. The Big Three supply drugs to pharmacies using 

“just-in-time” delivery. That means that most pharmacies receive drug deliveries every day 

and sometimes multiple times a day. Because deliveries are so frequent, distributors know 

exactly how many individual opioid pills they are delivering to each pharmacy. Distributors 

like AmerisourceBergen are thus uniquely positioned to assess whether a pharmacy is 

facilitating the diversion of prescription opioids.

C. AmerisourceBergen’s Initial Run-Ins With The DEA

In April 2007, the DEA suspended AmerisourceBergen’s license for a distribution 

center in Orlando, Florida, because of involvement with suspicious orders of opioids. The 

DEA found that the Orlando center had sold over 5.2 million dosage units of opioids to 

pharmacies that AmerisourceBergen knew, or should have known, were diverting the 

opioids into improper channels. The DEA found that the pharmacies in question (i) ordered 
18

opioids in amounts that far exceeded what an average pharmacy orders, (ii) ordered small 

amounts of other drug products relative to the pharmacies’ opioid purchases, (iii) ordered 

opioids much more frequently than other pharmacy customers, and (iv) were publicly 

known to fill prescriptions written by physicians acting outside the usual course of 

professional practice. The DEA concluded that AmerisourceBergen had failed to maintain 

effective controls against diversion.

In June 2007, AmerisourceBergen settled with the DEA (the “2007 Settlement”). 

As part of the settlement, AmerisourceBergen committed to implement a more 

sophisticated order monitoring program designed to detect and prevent diversion of 

controlled substances (the “2007 OMP”). In August, in reliance on the implementation of 

the 2007 OMP, the DEA reinstated the license for the Orlando center.

That same year, AmerisourceBergen acquired Bellco Drug Company (“Bellco”), 

another drug distributor. In June 2007, between signing and closing, Bellco entered into a 

consent decree with the DEA for failing to report suspicious orders of controlled 

substances. Bellco paid an $800,000 fine and surrendered its DEA license.

After these events, AmerisourceBergen developed and implemented the 2007 OMP. 

When doing so, the Company consulted with the DEA to establish what at the time 

constituted the industry-standard compliance program. 

AmerisourceBergen described the 2007 Settlement and the Bellco settlement in its 

annual reports on Form 10-K for the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
19

D. The Independent Pharmacy Strategy

During 2010, management embarked on a plan to extract maximum value from the 

independent pharmacy market (the “Independent Pharmacy Strategy”). Independent 

pharmacies offered a potentially significant source of revenue because they had 

significantly less market power than chain pharmacies and could not bargain as effectively 

for lower prices. Their smaller size also meant that they had fewer resources to devote to 

monitoring suspicious orders and could more easily become pill mills. 

In 2011, management continued to pursue the Independent Pharmacy Strategy. 

Management hired McKinsey & Co. to help make the AmerisourceBergen sales force more 

effective and focused on expanding its independent pharmacy business in New York. Sales 

to independent pharmacies increased by 11.7% between July 2010 and March 2011. 

During this same period, AmerisourceBergen’s commitment to diversion control 

began to ebb. At the time, Chris Zimmerman held the position of Vice President of 

Corporate Securities and Regulatory Affairs (“Regulatory Affairs”), where he was in 

charge of diversion control. On April 22, 2011, he sent an email to the five senior members 

of the diversion control team that contained a set of lyrics for a song titled “Pillbillies,” a 

parody of The Beverly Hillbillies theme song. The parody described opioid addicts visiting 

Florida “Pain Clinics” to buy “Hillbilly Heroin.” Another email that circulated among the 

senior compliance staff included the lyrics for the song “OxyContinVille,” a parody of 

Jimmy Buffet’s “Margaritaville.” It described addicts driving from Kentucky to Florida 

“[l]ookin’ for pill mills.” On May 6, 2011, Zimmerman emailed the leadership team for 

diversion control about recently enacted Florida legislation that was designed to crack 
20

down on pill mills. He offered the following prediction: “Watch out Georgia and Alabama, 

there will be a max [sic] exodus of Pillbillies heading north.”

In March 2012, Zimmerman was promoted to the positions of Chief Compliance 

Officer and Senior Vice President in charge of Corporate Securities and Regulatory Affairs, 

a position he held until October 2018. During that period, Zimmerman and his division 

were responsible for overseeing the order monitoring program and anti-diversion efforts, 

and Zimmerman personally was responsible for bringing issues to the attention of the Audit 

Committee. Zimmerman’s communications with his team support an inference that he was 

not a suitable individual to hold these important positions, and his callous and scornful 

disregard for the victims of the opioid crisis supports an inference that AmerisourceBergen 

lacked a culture of compliance. 

Also in March 2012, the board learned that the DEA had suspended Cardinal 

Health’s license to distribute controlled substances from a distribution facility in Lakeland, 

Florida. The basis for the suspension was Cardinal Health’s dealings with four independent 

retail pharmacies.

In the face of the DEA’s enforcement actions, management and the board doubled 

down on the Independent Pharmacy Strategy. Management and the board discussed ways 

to expand the independent pharmacy business by offering a “[s]uite of offerings to reduce 

churn and increase profitability,” including “a ‘light touch’ franchise model” and “‘friendly 

landings’ for [AmerisourceBergen] independent pharmacists looking to transfer 

ownership.” Compl. ¶ 119. The light touch franchise model meant easy onboarding for new 
21

independent pharmacies and minimal compliance-related diligence by 

AmerisourceBergen. 

Two months later, in May 2012, management reported to the Audit Committee that 

the Company had received subpoenas from the DEA and the United States Attorney’s 

Office for the District of New Jersey that sought documents concerning the Company’s 

anti-diversion programs. In June 2012, the Attorney General of West Virginia named 

AmerisourceBergen as a defendant in a lawsuit that alleged violations of state law related 

to the distribution of opioids.

In November 2012, the Audit Committee received a report on the Company’s 

regulatory compliance efforts, including anti-diversion controls. The report informed the 

committee members that AmerisourceBergen’s levels of suspicious order reporting were 

extremely low: 

AmerisourceBergen Averaged 215,000,000

Line Orders from 2009-2012

Suspicious Orders Reported

2009 0.000864% [1,858]

2010 0.001085% [2,322]

2011 0.001870% [4,020]

2012 0.002564% [5,512]

Id. ¶ 129. The committee also learned that the Company was expending far fewer resources 

on compliance than peer companies. Its staff of fourteen internal audit personnel was less 

than one-third the average of forty-six internal audit staff at other Fortune 500 companies. 
22

AmerisourceBergen’s internal audit expenditure of $1.85 million was similarly well below

the $7.1 million average at other Fortune 500 companies.

The Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 31, 

2012, disclosed the subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of 

New Jersey and the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of West Virginia. Similar 

disclosures appeared in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2013.

E. The Walgreens Alliance

During 2013, management sought to increase the Company’s sales through an 

alliance with Walgreens. By taking on a distribution relationship with Walgreens,

AmerisourceBergen added more than 8,000 retail pharmacies to its portfolio. 

AmerisourceBergen estimated that the alliance would increase its orders for controlled 

substances by 213%.

By increasing order flow, the alliance increased AmerisourceBergen’s risk of 

suspicious orders. Not only that, but Walgreens was already having problems with the 

DEA. In June 2013, Walgreens agreed to pay an $80 million fine to the DEA for negligently 

allowing opioids to be diverted for misuse.

With the Company expecting to double its orders, management advised the board 

that the Diversion Control Group in Regulatory Affairs would increase from just five 

employees to seven. The Investigations Group would increase from only four employees 

to six. The resources associated with diversion thus would not keep pace with anticipated 

growth. In real-world terms, the per-order level of resources was reduced. 
23

F. Increasing Regulatory Scrutiny 

As 2013 wore on, the regulatory and enforcement environment intensified. In 

September 2013, management advised the board that there was an “increasing focus in [sic] 

[controlled substances] sales and [order monitoring programs] in US.” Id. ¶ 148. In 

November 2013, the board received an update on subpoenas issued by the DEA and 

multiple United States Attorneys’ Offices.

The Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, disclosed 

the complaint filed by the Attorney General of West Virginia, the subpoenas issued by the 

United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, and additional subpoenas issued by 

the United States Attorneys for the Districts of Kansas and the Northern District of Ohio. 

The Company’s Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2013, contained similar 

disclosures.

Throughout 2014, the directors received reports on the ongoing investigations into 

the Company. During its meeting in October 2014, the Audit Committee learned that the 

United States Attorneys’ Office for the District of New Jersey had subpoenaed the 

Company’s outside auditor as part of a pending grand jury investigation involving the 

Company. 

During 2014, the Company’s public filings continued to contain disclosures 

regarding the investigations being conducted by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and 

the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of West Virginia.
24

G. The Revised OMP

In 2015, against a backdrop of increasing legal scrutiny and already low levels of 

suspicious order reporting, management and the board implemented the Revised OMP. The 

plaintiffs contend that the Revised OMP was plainly intended to reduce the number of 

suspicious orders that the Company would report to the DEA. The plaintiffs assert that, 

when viewed in conjunction with the Company’s efforts to expand its opioid distribution 

business through measures like the Independent Pharmacy Strategy and the Walgreens 

alliance, and in the context of intensifying regulatory scrutiny, the adoption of the Revised 

OMP evidences a knowing breach of fiduciary duty in which the directors prioritized 

profits over compliance. 

In March 2015, Zimmerman and David May, the Director of Diversion Control and 

Federal Investigations, gave a presentation to the Audit Committee about the Revised 

OMP. The Company was still using the 2007 OMP, which flagged orders using static 

thresholds. The Revised OMP added a second test that compared an individual order’s size 

against “[d]ynamic thresholds refreshed annually based upon actual consumption data over 

the most recent 12-month period.” Id. ¶ 166. It thus added an additional trigger that would 

fail only if a current order was inconsistent with the customer’s recent pattern of orders. 

Ultimately, both tests needed to fail for an order to be marked as suspicious.

As depicted in a Venn diagram presented to the Audit Committee, the double-trigger 

Revised OMP would inevitably result in only a portion of orders flagged for investigation:
25

Ex. 39 at 9. The Audit Committee reported on this presentation to the full board the next 

day. After the board meeting, the Revised OMP went into effect. Dkt. 28 at 3–5.

Between 2014 and 2015, the level of suspicious orders that AmerisourceBergen 

reported to the DEA declined by 86%, dropping from 14,003 to 1,892. Over the same 

period, AmerisourceBergen’s total orders increased by 8.6%, from 20,777,594 to 

22,560,562.

Between 2015 and 2016, the level of suspicious orders that AmerisourceBergen 

reported to the DEA declined by another 92%, dropping from 1,892 to 139. Over the same 
26

period, AmerisourceBergen’s total orders increased by 6.7%, from 22,560,562 to 

24,067,791.

The following table shows the impact of the Revised OMP.

Percentage of Orders Flagged and Reported to the DEA

2013 2014 2015 2016

Orders Placed 13,580,197 20,777,594 22,560,562 24,067,791

Orders of Interest 60,499 78,707 83,407 48,888

Orders Reported 24,103 14,003 1,892 139

Percent of All 

Orders Flagged 

(derived)

0.445% 0.379% 0.370% 0.203%

Percent of All 

Orders Reported 

(derived)

0.177% 0.067% 0.008% 0.0006%

The Revised OMP was not the only problem with the Company’s order monitoring 

system. In August 2015, AmerisourceBergen engaged FTI Consulting, Inc. to conduct a 

review of how AmerisourceBergen went about investigating orders of interest. FTI 

identified a series of deficiencies, including a lack of resources, lack of formal training,

inconsistent policies, and communication breakdowns. The report identified the 

Company’s regulatory obligations related to diversion control as one of the “Gaps & Risks”

that needed to be addressed.

H. The Stockholder Litigation Demand

On December 1, 2015, the law firm of Scott + Scott LLP sent a litigation demand 

to the board on behalf of a stockholder named James Hays that asked the directors to bring 
27

claims against themselves for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with their failure to 

oversee the Company’s diversion control and order monitoring systems. Ex. 55 at 5–6. 

The Audit Committee retained Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP

(“Fried Frank”) to evaluate the demand and make a recommendation regarding whether 

the Company should pursue litigation against its directors. On August 4, 2016, Fried Frank 

presented its report and recommendations to the board. Fried Frank recommended against 

pursuing any claims, and the board adopted that recommendation. See Ex. 56.

Except for reviewing the litigation demand, the board did not take any steps in 2016 

to evaluate the Revised OMP. Government investigators subsequently asserted that 

AmerisourceBergen’s systems could be manipulated easily to avoid flagging orders as 

suspicious and that AmerisourceBergen was not conducting adequate diligence into 

customer orders. 

As noted, AmerisourceBergen reported only 139 orders in 2016. Despite shipping 

millions of opioid pills into West Virginia in 2016, AmerisourceBergen reported only three 

suspicious orders for all of the pharmacies in West Virginia.

I. 2017: More Red Flags

In 2017, AmerisourceBergen’s officers and directors were confronted with a steady 

stream of red flags. In January 2017, the Audit Committee was informed that 

AmerisourceBergen had entered into a $16 million settlement with the State of West 

Virginia to resolve claims regarding opioid distribution. The Audit Committee was advised 

that other West Virginia County Commissions and cities had filed similar complaints.
28

In May 2017, the Energy and Commerce Committee of the United States House of 

Representatives (the “House Committee”) opened a bipartisan investigation into large 

opioid shipments to small-town pharmacies in West Virginia. Two months later, United 

States Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, then the Ranking Member of the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, requested documents and 

information related to AmerisourceBergen’s anti-diversion efforts.

AmerisourceBergen’s order reporting statistics for 2017 resembled its numbers for 

2015 and 2016. AmerisourceBergen received 24,319,706 opioid orders. The Company 

flagged 87,224 for examination, representing a rate of 0.359%. The Company determined 

that only 176 orders were actually suspicious, reflecting a rate of 0.0007% of total orders 

and 0.2% of flagged orders.

During 2017, a consortium of attorneys general from forty-one states requested 

documents and information from AmerisourceBergen and other opioid distributors as part 

of an investigation into their distribution practices. See 220 Decision, 2020 WL 132752, 

at *3.

In its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, 

AmerisourceBergen represented to stockholders that its diversion controls were sound. The 

annual report stated:

[W]e are deeply committed to diversion control efforts, have sophisticated 

systems in place to identify orders placed warranting further review to 

determine if they are suspicious (including through the use of data analytics), 

and engage in significant due diligence and ongoing monitoring of 

customers.

Compl. ¶ 295. 
29

J. 2018: More Red Flags

In January 2018, after AmerisourceBergen failed to respond to a records request, 

the State of Delaware filed a complaint alleging that AmerisourceBergen “routinely and 

continuously violated [Delaware] laws and regulations” concerning the distribution of 

opioids. Id. ¶ 250. In February, the Cherokee Nation filed a complaint against 

AmerisourceBergen for having fueled the opioid crisis in Oklahoma. By this point, 

AmerisourceBergen faced 840 cases in state and federal courts, as well as investigations 

by the Department of Justice and by United States Attorneys’ Offices in New Jersey, New 

York, Colorado, and West Virginia.

Management staunchly defended the Company’s practices. When testifying in May 

2018, before the House Committee, the Company’s Chairman, President, and CEO, Steven 

Collis, denied that AmerisourceBergen had contributed to the nation’s opioid epidemic and 

maintained that the Company’s order management program was fully compliant with law.

Two months later, in July 2018, Senator McCaskill published a report titled Fueling 

an Epidemic, Report Three: A Flood of 1.6 Billion Doses of Opioids into Missouri and the 

Need for Stronger DEA Enforcement. The Senate report concluded that 

AmerisourceBergen, McKesson, and Cardinal Health consistently failed to meet their 

reporting obligations regarding suspicious orders. The report observed that 

AmerisourceBergen was the most egregious of the three and reported suspicious orders far 

less frequently than its competitors. Between 2012 and 2017, AmerisourceBergen shipped 

approximately 650 million dosage units to Missouri customers and reported only 224 

orders as suspicious. McKesson reported seventy-five times more suspicious orders on 
30

similar order volumes. Cardinal Health reported twenty-three times as many orders on half 

the volume.

In August 2018, Zimmerman gave a deposition in which he testified that although 

he met with the Audit Committee quarterly, he did not regularly provide updates on 

diversion controls. He also admitted that his department did not perform periodic, 

unexpected audits of the Company’s independent pharmacy customers, even the easily 

identifiable and relatively small groups of pharmacies that consistently ordered the highest 

volumes of opioids.

In December 2018, the House Committee released a report titled Red Flags and 

Warning Signs Ignored: Opioid Distribution and Enforcement Concerns in West Virginia. 

The report found that AmerisourceBergen, McKesson, and Cardinal Health failed to 

address suspicious order monitoring in West Virginia. It concluded that after the 2007 

Settlement with the DEA, AmerisourceBergen initially identified and halted suspicious 

orders from West Virginia, but that beginning in 2013, AmerisourceBergen’s reporting of 

suspicious orders declined significantly from a high of 792 orders in 2013 to a low of only 

three orders in 2016. The report inferred that the trend for AmerisourceBergen’s reporting 

of suspicious orders in West Virginia reflected a broader nationwide decline, because on a 

per-capita basis, West Virginia had the second-highest number of suspicious orders 

reported to the DEA by AmerisourceBergen of all states. Stated differently, in other states 

AmerisourceBergen was reporting fewer suspicious orders on a per-capita basis. See 

Majority Staff of H. Comm. on Energy & Com., Red Flags and Warning Signs Ignored: 
31

Opioid Distribution and Enforcement Concerns in West Virginia 16, 250–55 (Comm. 

Print 2018).

The House Committee report concluded that AmerisourceBergen was worse than 

its competitors when it came to reporting suspicious orders to the DEA. Between 2007 and 

2017, McKesson reported more than 10,000 suspicious orders for West Virginia customers. 

AmerisourceBergen only reported 2,000 suspicious orders during the same period. 

Id. at 16.

The House Committee report provided examples of how the Independent Pharmacy 

Strategy and the “light touch” approach operated in practice. For example, in 2011, 

AmerisourceBergen approved Westside Pharmacy as a new customer even though two of 

the six prescribing “Pain Doctors” were located substantial distances away from the 

pharmacy. AmerisourceBergen did not conduct any investigation into why those doctors 

were using Westside Pharmacy to fill their prescriptions. AmerisourceBergen stopped 

supplying Westside Pharmacy with opioids in 2012, then approved a new customer 

application for Westside Pharmacy in January 2016, without considering the pharmacy’s 

prior history with the Company. AmerisourceBergen also did not consult public news 

reports that contained red flags about the prescribing physicians. Id. at 19–20.

AmerisourceBergen’s order reporting statistics for 2018 resembled its numbers for 

2015, 2016, and 2017. AmerisourceBergen received 26,520,195 opioid orders. The 

Company flagged 75,431 for examination, representing a rate of 0.284%. The Company 

determined that only 489 orders were actually suspicious, reflecting a rate of 0.0018% of 

total orders and 0.6% of flagged orders.
32

In its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, 

AmerisourceBergen repeated its disclosure regarding the quality of its diversion 

control program.

K. 2019: Still More Red Flags

In February 2019, the board received a report detailing over 1,600 federal cases that 

had been consolidated in a multidistrict litigation before the Northern District of Ohio (the 

“Opioid MDL”), numerous cases pending in state courts, an investigation being undertaken 

by a coalition of state attorneys general, and subpoenas from numerous United States 

Attorneys’ offices. The Attorney General for the State of Florida had filed suit in November 

2018, and the Attorney General for the State of Georgia had filed suit in January 2019. The 

directors also were informed that the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of New 

Jersey was opening a criminal investigation into the Company.

The Company’s report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending January 30, 2019, 

included disclosures regarding the litigation facing the Company. It noted that 

AmerisourceBergen was engaged in settlement discussions with the United States Attorney 

for the District of New Jersey and stated:

[T]he Company continued to receive additional subpoenas from the USAONJ that expanded the scope of the previous subpoenas, asking about the 

Company’s programs from 2013 through the present. Due to this increase in 

scope, any previous monetary offers made by the Company are suspended 

and any settlement discussions are now preliminary and incomplete. The 

Company has concluded, and we concur, that a loss in this matter is 

reasonably possible in accordance with ASC 450-20, Contingencies- Loss 

Contingences; however, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a 

range of possible loss.

Compl. ¶ 256 (formatting omitted).
33

In March 2019, the Attorney General for the State of Washington filed suit. The 

Attorney General for the State of New York filed its own action that same month.

In May 2019, the plaintiffs served a demand for books and records on 

AmerisourceBergen. The plaintiffs explained that they sought to investigate whether the 

Company’s directors and officers had committed mismanagement or breached their 

fiduciary duties in connection with the distribution of opioids, and they described 

AmerisourceBergen’s role in the opioid crisis and the avalanche of legal issues facing the 

Company. Astoundingly, AmerisourceBergen rejected the demand in its entirety, 

contending that the demand did not state a proper purpose or provide a credible basis to 

suspect wrongdoing. Over the next two years, the plaintiffs pursued their books-andrecords action, prevailing first before this court and then on appeal. See 

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Lebanon Cnty. Empls.’ Ret. Fund, 243 A.3d 417, 422 (Del. 

2020) (affirming 220 Decision).

On October 21, 2019, on the eve of trial for one of the bellwether cases in the Opioid 

MDL, AmerisourceBergen, McKesson, and Cardinal Health settled for a payment of $215 

million.

During 2019, more plaintiffs brought claims against the Company. Cabell County 

and the City of Huntington in West Virginia filed a joint complaint against 

AmerisourceBergen and other major opioid distributors. The State of Tennessee and the 

State of Michigan also filed lawsuits.

AmerisourceBergen’s order reporting statistics for 2019 resembled its numbers for 

2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, albeit with slight increases in the numbers of orders flagged 
34

and reported. AmerisourceBergen received 27,030,389 opioid orders. The Company 

flagged 66,009 for examination, representing a rate of 0.244%. The Company determined 

that only 1,091 orders were actually suspicious, reflecting a rate of 0.004% of total orders 

and 1.6% of flagged orders.

In its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, 

AmerisourceBergen repeated its disclosure regarding the quality of its diversion 

control program.

L. 2021: The Settlements

In 2020, AmerisourceBergen continued to face an onslaught of additional opioid 

litigation. AmerisourceBergen’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2020, again reassured stockholders about the quality of its diversion 

control program.

In the summer of 2021, AmerisourceBergen, McKesson, and Cardinal Health faced 

two significant trials, one in West Virginia and one in New York. Before the New York 

trial concluded, the defendants offered a global settlement worth $21 billion to resolve all 

claims by the states and localities.

On July 20, 2021, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, McKesson, and Johnson & 

Johnson agreed to settle the New York action for $1.18 billion. They simultaneously 

reached an agreement with various other states and localities on a global settlement 

involving a payment of $26 billion (the “2021 Settlement”). AmerisourceBergen agreed to 

pay approximately $6.4 billion over eighteen years.
35

As part of the 2021 Settlement, AmerisourceBergen agreed to permanent injunctive 

relief designed to remedy deficiencies in the Revised OMP and require direct board 

oversight of the program. Among other things, AmerisourceBergen agreed to improve its 

monitoring of customer red flags, conduct more thorough due diligence investigations, and 

use model-based thresholds in a manner that actually identifies and stops suspicious orders. 

In addition, AmerisourceBergen agreed to establish the position of Chief Diversion Control 

Officer and form a management-level committee that would report regularly to the board 

on anti-diversion efforts. AmerisourceBergen also agreed to create a board-level 

Compliance Committee to directly oversee the new order management 

program. Dkt. 28 at 35.

In return for this package of relief, AmerisourceBergen and the individual

defendants received expansive releases from liability. The plaintiffs view the corporate 

governance measures as steps that the defendants could and should have taken years before, 

but which they saved to use as settlement currency. Id. at 35 n.118.

As of January 2021, anticipated opioid settlements had caused the Company to 

suffer an operating loss of $5.135 billion (approximately $16.65 per share). Despite the 

massive harm to AmerisourceBergen, the directors approved a raise of $14.3 million for 

Collis as CEO, reflecting an increase of 26%. Id. at 35–36.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on the 

grounds that it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The defendants maintain 

that the plaintiffs cannot state a claim for relief because their lawsuit is untimely. 
36

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court (i) accepts as true all wellpleaded factual allegations in the complaint, (ii) credits vague allegations if they give the 

opposing party notice of the claim, and (iii) draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

plaintiffs. Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Cap. Hldgs. LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 535 

(Del. 2011). Dismissal is inappropriate “unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover 

under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances.” Id.

For a court to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on timeliness grounds, the complaint’s 

allegations must show that the claim was filed too late. Kahn v. Seaboard Corp., 625 A.2d 

269, 277 (Del. Ch. 1993) (Allen, C.). When asserting a timeliness defense, a defendant 

argues that even if the claims are viable, the plaintiff cannot assert them, so the court 

effectively assumes the validity of the claims, then applies timeliness principles. When

evaluating whether the factual allegations in a complaint support a timeliness defense, a 

court “must draw the same plaintiff-friendly inferences required in a 12(b)(6) analysis.”

State ex rel. Brady v. Pettinaro Enters., 870 A.2d 513, 524–25 (Del. Ch. 2005).7

7 The Pettinaro decision asserts that “[t]his plaintiff-friendly stance does not govern 

assertion of tolling exceptions to the operation of a statute of limitations (or the running of 

the analogous period for purposes of a laches analysis), however. A plaintiff asserting a 

tolling exception must plead facts supporting the applicability of that exception.” Id. (citing 

In re Dean Witter P’ship Litig., 1998 WL 442456, at *6 (Del. Ch. July 17, 1998), aff’d, 

725 A.2d 441 (Del. 1999) (TABLE) (“[T]he party asserting that tolling applies . . . bear[s] 

the burden of pleading specific facts to demonstrate that the statute of limitations was, in 

fact, tolled.”)). As the quotation from the Dean Witter decision shows, that case supports 

the proposition that a plaintiff has the burden to allege facts at the pleading stage that 

support the application of a tolling doctrine. Other authorities say the same thing. E.g., 

Carlton Invs. v. TLC Beatrice Int’l Hldgs., Inc., 1995 WL 694397, at *14 (Del. Ch. Nov. 

21, 1995) (Allen, C.) (“Plaintiff has the burden of pleading facts that will qualify the case 

for the tolling principle.”); In re USACAFES, L.P. Litig., 1993 WL 18769, at *3 (Del. Ch. 
37

The plaintiffs advance a Red-Flags Claim and a Massey Claim. No Delaware 

decision has addressed how to apply timeliness principles to either type of claim. The 

defendants argue for applying the same timeliness principles that would govern any breach

of fiduciary duty claim involving an easily identifiable and singular decision. The 

defendants then apply a three-year statute of limitations, treating the Red-Flags Theory and 

Massey Theory as if they were claims at law.

Jan. 21, 1993) (“[W]here, as here, plaintiff’s pleading shows on its face that if the 

applicable statute were applied, the claim asserted would be time-barred, then it is 

plaintiff’s burden to plead facts which could support a conclusion that, in the 

circumstances, the running of the statute was tolled.”). The authorities do not support the 

assertion that once a plaintiff has pled facts that could support the application of a tolling 

doctrine, the plaintiff does not receive the benefit of pleading-stage inferences that would 

support the tolling doctrine’s application. Nor does the Pettinaro decision explain why the

Rule 12(b)(6) standard would not govern in that instance. Subsequent decisions have 

repeated Pettinaro’s statement about Rule 12(b)(6)’s inapplicability, without investigation. 

See, e.g., Matter of Est. of du Pont Dean, 2017 WL 3189552, at *4 (Del. Ch. July 13, 2017); 

Eni Hldgs., LLC v. KBR Gp. Hldgs., LLC, 2013 WL 6186326, at *11 (Del. Ch. Nov. 27, 

2013).

The real difference seems to be between Delaware’s fact-based version of notice 

pleading under Rule 8 and the heightened requirement of particularized pleading under 

Rule 9. Consistent with how Delaware applies Rule 8, a plaintiff must plead facts 

supporting an inference that tolling applies. If the plaintiff invokes fraudulent concealment, 

then the plaintiff must plead particularized facts in compliance with Rule 9. If there are 

competing inferences to be drawn from those facts, then the plaintiff gets the benefit of the 

inference at the pleading stage. That is what Rule 12(b)(6) contemplates, and that is how 

the rule generally operates on other issues where the plaintiff has the burden, such as on 

the issue of proving an element of a pled claim. See, e.g., In re Am. Int’l Gp., Inc. Consol. 

Deriv. Litig., 965 A.2d 763, 805–06 (Del. Ch. 2009) (“But, even though fraud must be 

stated with particularity, this is still a motion to dismiss, and the Stockholder Plaintiffs are 

entitled to have me draw all reasonable inferences in their favor.”), aff’d sub nom. Tchrs.’

Ret. Sys. of La. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 11 A.3d 228 (Del. 2011) (TABLE). 
38

The proper framework for evaluating the timeliness of the Red-Flags Theory and 

Massey Theory is the doctrine of laches. When examined within the laches framework, 

neither of the plaintiffs’ claims is untimely. The defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion is 

therefore denied. 

A. The Framework For Analyzing Timeliness

There are two conceptual frameworks for analyzing timeliness: the statute of 

limitations and the doctrine of laches. See Whittington v. Dragon Gp., L.L.C., 991 A.2d 1, 

7 (Del. 2009) (“Both the doctrine of laches and statutes of limitations function as time bars 

to lawsuits.”). Depending on the nature of the claim and the relief requested, a court of 

equity may apply either doctrine.

When a plaintiff has advanced a legal claim and seeks a form of relief that is 

available from a court at law, such as monetary damages, then the court will apply the 

statute of limitations in the same manner as a law court. Perkins v. Cartmell, 1845 WL 493 

at *5 (Del. June 1845). Otherwise, a plaintiff could “be placed in a potentially better 

position to seek to avoid a statute of limitations than if she had filed in a Delaware court of 

law by invoking the more flexible doctrine of laches.” Kraft v. WisdomTree Invs., Inc., 145 

A.3d 969, 976 (Del. Ch. 2016). For a legal claim seeking legal relief, a plaintiff should not 

be able to end run the statute of limitations by finding a basis for jurisdiction in chancery. 

BioVeris Corp. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC, 2017 WL 5035530, at *5 (Del. Ch. Nov. 

2, 2017), aff’d, 2019 WL 244619 (Del. Jan. 17, 2019) (TABLE).

If a plaintiff has presented a court of equity with an equitable claim or if the plaintiff 

has sought equitable relief, then the court will apply the doctrine of laches. 2 Donald J. 
39

Wolfe, Jr. & Michael A. Pittenger, Corporate and Commercial Practice in the Delaware 

Court of Chancery § 15.07[d] at 15-88 (2d ed. 2021). “Laches is an affirmative defense 

that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing suit after learning of an infringement of 

his or her rights.” Levey v. Brownstone Asset Mgmt., L.P., 76 A.3d 764, 769 (Del. 2013). 

“Laches consists of two elements: (i) unreasonable delay in bringing a claim by a plaintiff 

with knowledge thereof, and (ii) resulting prejudice to the defendant.” Id.

In this case, the plaintiffs have asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, which 

is an equitable tort.8 The claim sounds in equity, so the doctrine of laches applies. 

If a plaintiff has presented a court of equity with an equitable claim and only seeks 

money damages, then a modified form of laches applies. U.S. Cellular Inv. Co. of 

Allentown v. Bell Atl. Mobile Sys., Inc., 677 A.2d 497, 502 (Del. 1996). In this setting, 

“[w]here a plaintiff seeks a legal remedy in a court of equity and a statute of limitations 

exists for an analogous action at law, the statutory period may create a presumptive time 

period for application of laches to bar a claim.” Id. 

B. Unreasonable Delay

The first element of the laches analysis is whether a plaintiff has delayed 

unreasonably in bringing the claim. Because the plaintiffs seek money damages, the court 

8 Hampshire Gp., Ltd. v. Kuttner, 2010 WL 2739995, at *54 (Del. Ch. July 12, 2010) 

(“A breach of fiduciary duty is easy to conceive of as an equitable tort.”); see Restatement 

(Second) of Torts § 874 cmt. b (Am. L. Inst. 1979), Westlaw (database updated Oct. 2021) 

(“A fiduciary who commits a breach of his duty as a fiduciary is guilty of tortious 

conduct . . . .”). See generally J. Travis Laster & Michelle D. Morris, Breaches of Fiduciary 

Duty and the Delaware Uniform Contribution Act, 11 Del. L. Rev. 71 (2010).
40

looks to the limitations period that would govern a comparable claim at law. Whittington, 

991 A.2d at 9. “A filing after the expiration of the analogous limitations period is 

presumptively an unreasonable delay for purposes of laches.” Levey, 76 A.3d at 769. 

“Conversely, in equity, a lawsuit commenced within the analogous period of limitations is 

presumed to have been filed within a reasonable time.” Id. at 769–70 (internal 

citation omitted). 

A threshold issue challenge is to identify a statutory period for a comparable claim. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 860 A.2d 312, 319 (Del. 2004). For claims for 

breach of fiduciary duty that step is easy, because this court regularly looks to Section 8106 

of Title 10 and its three-year limitations period. 10 Del. C. § 8106; see, e.g., Dean Witter, 

1998 WL 442456, at *4. The parties agree on that point.

Having identified a statutory period, the court must determine when the claim 

accrued, because the limitations period is calculated from that point of claim accrual. WalMart, 860 A.3d at 319. After that, the court must determine whether any tolling doctrines 

could extend the statute of limitations. Id. The result is the analogous time period that forms 

the laches baseline. 

1. The Time Of Accrual 

“In addressing when an action is time-barred, a necessary first step in the analysis 

is determining the time when the action accrued.” U.S. Cellular, 677 A.2d at 503; accord 

Scharf v. Edgcomb Corp., 864 A.2d 909, 920 (Del. 2004) (“[I]t is imperative to identify a 

date certain when any statute of limitations begins to run.”). “[A]ny period of limitation is 

utterly meaningless without specification of the event that starts it running. As a practical 
41

matter, a 4-year statute of limitations means nothing at all unless one knows when the four 

years start running. If they start, for example, on the 10th anniversary of the injury, the 4-

year statute is more akin to a 14-year statute . . . .” Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 

179, 199 (1997) (Scalia, J., concurring). 

“The statute of limitations begins to run at the time that the cause of action 

accrues . . . .” Largo Legacy Gp., LLC v. Charles, 2021 WL 2692426, at *9 (Del. Ch. June 

30, 2021) (quoting Tyson Foods, 919 A.2d at 584). Different jurisdictions use different 

rules to determine when a cause of action accrues. 

Some states accrue a cause of action when damages have been 

suffered or are ascertainable. Other states accrue a cause of 

action at the time of loss. Delaware, by contrast, declined to 

adopt these or other alternatives. Instead, Delaware is an 

occurrence rule jurisdiction, meaning a cause of action accrues 

at the time of the wrongful act, even if the plaintiff is ignorant 

of the cause of action.

ISN Software Corp. v. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., 226 A.3d 727, 732 (Del. 2020) 

(cleaned up). 

“The ‘wrongful act’ is a general concept that varies depending on the nature of the 

claim at issue.” Certainteed Corp. v. Celotex Corp., 2005 WL 217032, *7 (Del. Ch. Jan. 

24, 2005). “In Delaware, for contract claims, the wrongful act occurs at the time a contract 

is breached.” ISN Software Corp., 226 A.3d at 732 (cleaned up). Thus, “the cause of action 

accrues at the time of breach.” Certainteed, 2005 WL 217032, at *7, quoted in ISN 

Software Corp., 226 A.3d at 732 n.22. “For tort claims . . . the wrongful act occurs at the 

time of injury.” Id. at 732 (cleaned up). But the concept of injury for purposes of accrual 

does not require that a plaintiff have suffered quantifiable damages, even if pleading 
42

damages is an element of the cause of action. See ISN Software Corp., 226 A.3d at 733 

(“Under the Delaware occurrence rule, injury is distinct from damages. The statute of 

limitations can start to run before any ‘actual or substantial damages’ occur.”); see also id. 

733 n.23. It is enough that there has been an injury, however slight, to the plaintiff’s legal 

rights. See Kaufman v. C.L. McCabe & Sons, Inc., 603 A.2d 831, 834 (Del. 1992). “It is 

not required that all the damages resulting from the act shall have been sustained at that 

time, and the running of the statute is not postponed by the fact that the actual or substantial 

damages do not occur until a later date.” Id. (cleaned up).

As noted previously, a claim for a breach of fiduciary duty is an equitable tort. Under 

the standard formulation, “[t]he claim has only two formal elements: (i) the existence of a 

fiduciary duty that the defendant owes to the plaintiff and (ii) a breach of that duty.” Metro 

Storage Int’l LLC v. Harron, 275 A.3d 810, 840–41 (Del. Ch. 2022); accord Estate of Eller 

v. Bartron, 31 A.3d 895, 897 (Del. 2011) (“To establish liability for the breach of a 

fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed her a fiduciary duty 

and that the defendant breached it.”). When a fiduciary makes a decision that the plaintiff 

alleges is wrongful, the decision is the wrongful act.9 Like other types of claims, “[a] claim 

9 A standard exception is if the implementation of the board decision is conditioned 

on an additional event, such as a favorable stockholder vote, then a claim challenging the 

decision does not accrue until the condition is satisfied. See Kaufman v. Albin, 447 A.2d 

761, 764 (Del. Ch. 1982); Lavine v. Gulf Coast Leaseholds, Inc., 122 A.2d 550, 552 (Del. 

Ch. 1956) (Seitz, C.).
43

for breach of fiduciary duty accrues at the time of the wrongful act.” Sutherland v. 

Sutherland, 2010 WL 1838968, at *8 (Del. Ch. May 3, 2010).

Applying this test is straightforward when a fiduciary makes an affirmative 

decision, such as when a board approves a contract or grants an option. The wrongful act 

takes place when the decision is made, and any cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty 

accrues at that point. As Chancellor Allen explained in a case where a plaintiff challenged 

a decision by an interested board majority to cause the corporation to enter into a contract 

with its controlling stockholder, 

[a]ny such wrong occurred at the time that enforceable legal rights against 

Seaboard were created. Suit could have been brought immediately thereafter 

to rescind the contract and for nominal damages which are traditionally 

available in contract actions. Complete and adequate relief, if justified, could 

be shaped immediately or at any point thereafter.

Seaboard, 625 A.2d at 271.

Determining a time of accrual is more difficult when the wrongful act is not a 

singular decision but rather an ongoing series of continual decisions and non-decisions that 

extend over time. Courts have adopted different approaches depending on different 

settings. See, e.g., Eric C. Surette, Annotation, Accrual of Claims for Continuing Trespass 

or Continuing Nuisance for Purposes of Statutory Limitations, 14 A.L.R.7th art. 8 (2016 

& Supp); 4 Am. Jur. Trials 441 § 6 (1966).

One approach is to apply the same methodology used for discrete acts and look to 

the point at which the ongoing series begins. A seminal law review article on limitations 

periods explains that under this approach, “the period limiting actions to recover for all 

harm may commence upon the occurrence of the first invasion of the plaintiff’s rights.”
44

Developments in the Law Statutes of Limitations, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 1177, 1205 (1950)

[hereinafter Developments]; see Kyle Graham, The Continuing Violations Doctrine, 43 

Gonz. L. Rev. 271, 273 n.7 (2008) (describing Developments as “seminal”). 

Chancellor Allen’s decision in Seaboard can be interpreted as applying this 

approach. The interested contract concerned “a ten year time charter of seven vessels”

which required the company to pay substantial management fees and other sums over the 

ten-year period. 625 A.2d at 270. The corporation and its controller entered into the 

contract in 1986, but the plaintiff did not sue until 1990. Chancellor Allen rejected the 

plaintiff’s contention that the approval of the contract created an ongoing wrong that lasted 

for all ten years of the contracting period. He reasoned that “the only liability matter to be 

litigated involves defendants’ 1986 actions in authorizing the creation of these contract 

rights and liabilities.” Id. at 1036. The cause of action accrued at the time of that 

distinct act. The next ten years involved the implementation of the contract and the possible 

manifestation of damages, but not an ongoing wrongful act or a series of wrongful acts.

A second approach aggregates into a single unit “a series of related and assertedly 

wrongful acts, decisions, or failures to act (each of which may or may not be sufficient on 

its own to form the basis for a separate claim) occurring both within and outside of the 

limitations period prior to suit.” Graham, supra, at 280. Under the aggregation approach, 

the limitations period does not commence until the defendant ceases his wrongful conduct, 

because as long as the harm is ongoing, the cause of action is not yet complete. 

Developments, supra, at 1205. 
45

This approach is often called the continuing wrong doctrine.10 To plead a continuing 

wrong, the plaintiff must allege that the various acts are “so inexorably intertwined that 

there is but one continuing wrong.” Ewing v. Beck, 520 A.2d 653, 662 (Del. 1987). When 

a court determines that a continuing wrong exists, “the cause of action is timely so long as 

the last act evidencing the continuing wrong falls within the limitations period. That is, the 

cause of action does not accrue until the last act of the continuing wrong.” Kerns v. Dukes, 

2004 WL 766529, at *4 (Del. Ch. Apr. 2, 2004).

Designating a cause of action as a continuing wrong has significant implications for 

liability and damages, because it means that a court can impose liability, and a plaintiff can 

recover damages for the entire period during which the continuing wrong took place, 

including for periods that plainly preceded the applicable limitations period. Graham, 

supra, at 280–81. By contrast, under the discrete act approach, if the course of conduct 

began outside the limitations period, then the plaintiff cannot recover at all, even if the 

discrete act resulted in damage that manifests itself within the limitations period. See 54 

C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 279, Westlaw (database updated Nov. 2022). 

10 Other labels include the “continuing violation doctrine” (or the “continuing 

violations doctrine”). See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110, 114 

(2002). When tort claims are involved, it can be called the “continuing tort doctrine.”

Matson v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 240 F.3d 1233, 1236–38 (10th Cir. 2001) (applying 

the continuing tort doctrine). When contract claims are involved, it can be called the 

“continuing breach doctrine.” See AM Gen. Hldgs. LLC v. The Renco Gp., Inc., 2016 WL 

4440476, at *11–13 (Del. Ch. Aug. 22, 2016) (applying the continuing breach doctrine).
46

“Hostile work environment claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 offer the paradigmatic example of this type of continuing violation.” Graham, 

supra, at 281. The Supreme Court of the United States has explained that the very nature 

of a hostile work environment claim “involves repeated conduct.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at

115. “The ‘unlawful employment practice’ therefore cannot be said to occur on any 

particular day. It occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to 

discrete acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable on its own.” Id. The Court 

distinguished the ongoing nature of a hostile work environment from “[d]iscrete acts such 

as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.” Id. at 114–15. 

A plaintiff alleging a [continuous] hostile work environment can recover for 

all injurious manifestations of that environment, regardless of when they 

occurred, whether they would be actionable if sued upon individually, and 

when the plaintiff discovered the essential facts supporting his or her claim, 

provided that the same hostile environment persisted up into the limitations 

period prior to the filing of an administrative charge. 

Graham, supra, at 281.

This court applied the continuing wrong doctrine to a claim for breach of fiduciary 

duty in Frederick Hsu Living Trust v. ODN Holding Corp., 2017 WL 1437308 (Del. Ch. 

Apr. 14, 2017). The complaint supported a reasonable inference that between 2011 and 

2015, a private equity firm and its conflicted representatives on the board of one of its 

portfolio companies caused the portfolio company to sell off its assets to create a pool of 

cash that the company would be forced to use to redeem the preferred stock held by the 

private equity firm. The defendants sought to treat each sale of an asset as a separate 

transaction to which a separate limitations period would apply, resulting in the complaint 
47

being filed too late to challenge some of the transactions. The court rejected that argument, 

holding that it was reasonable to infer that “the defendants’ actions outside the limitations 

period were all ‘inexorably intertwined’ with the redemptions that eventually occurred.”

Id. at *43. As a result, the plaintiff could not assert a claim until the redemption occurred, 

and the cause of action did not accrue until the redemption took place.11

A third approach takes ongoing conduct and “dissects [the] misbehavior, instead of 

aggregating it.” Graham, supra, at 281. It thus “regards the perpetuation of, or (in some 

cases) failure to redress prior misconduct as wrongful and actionable in its own right, 

giving rise to a series of separate and fresh claims accruing within the limitations period 

on a day-by-day, act-by-act, or similarly parsed basis.” Id. Under this approach, “each 

11 Id. Delaware courts have also considered the continuing wrong doctrine when 

applying the contemporaneous ownership requirement imposed by Section 327 of the 

Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. § 327. The court has held that a series of 

similar decisions, such as a series of stock option grants, does not constitute a continuing 

wrong for purposes of the contemporaneous ownership requirement. See Desimone v. 

Barrows, 924 A.2d 908, 924–35 (Del. Ch. 2007) (“[T]he continuing wrong doctrine does 

not bestow standing upon a stockholder to challenge transactions occurring before he 

bought his stock simply because they are similar or related to transactions or other conduct 

that occurred later.”); Ryan v. Gifford, 918 A.2d 341 (Del. Ch. 2007) (holding that a 

plaintiff lacked standing to challenge backdated options grants occurring before he 

acquired his shares even though similar backdated grants continued to be made after the 

plaintiff became a stockholder”); see also Chirlin v. Crosby, 1982 WL 17872, at *2–3 (Del.

Ch. 1982) (“The allegations of a continuing wrong . . . merely attempt to obscure the fact 

that the plaintiffs are actually complaining about the alleged diversion which took place 

[before the plaintiff acquired his stock].”); Newkirk v. W.J. Rainey, Inc., 76 A.2d 121, 123 

(Del. Ch. 1950) (“Of course, in one sense every wrongful transaction constitutes a 

continuing wrong to the corporation until remedied. But if the rule embodied in [§ 327’s 

predecessor statute] is to be meaningful, then clearly ‘continuing wrong’ cannot be 

construed in such a sense because it would substantially defeat the statutory policy 

embodied in [§ 327’s predecessor statute].”).
48

continuation or repetition of the wrongful conduct may be regarded as a separate cause of 

action for which suit must be brought within the period beginning with its occurrence.”

Developments, supra, at 1205. This decision refers to this approach as the separate 

accrual doctrine.12

Writing while as a member of this court, then-Vice Chancellor Strine applied a 

version of the separate accrual doctrine in Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v. 

Aidinoff, 900 A.2d 654 (Del. Ch. 2006). Stockholder plaintiffs sued derivatively on behalf 

of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) to invalidate and recover damages based on 

various managing general agent agreements between AIG and entities controlled by its 

CEO. The defendants argued that the agreements had been put in place thirty years earlier 

12 The terminology is unsettled, and one commentator notes that the continuing 

wrong approach and the separate accrual approach are “frequently confused or conflated.”

Graham, supra, at 275. He refers to a wrongful act subject to the continuing wrong 

approach as a “pure continuing violation,” while calling a wrongful act subject to the 

separate accrual approach as a “modified continuing violation.” Graham, supra, at 283. 

Even one of the Delaware greats was not immune. In Seaboard, Chancellor Allen 

used the term “continuing wrong” to describe a separate accrual theory, writing that 

[w]here a continuing wrong acts as an answer to the defense of 

limitations it is typically the case that plaintiff can prove her 

claim by reference only to actions within the limitations period. 

Thus, for example, if plaintiff is complaining about a nuisance 

(a noise for example) emitted by a neighborhood plant for, say 

five years, plaintiff can prove her claim by proving the 

elements of the claim which occur daily or weekly or 

whenever, within the limitations period. It is irrelevant for 

limitations purposes that these daily or weekly invasions have 

been going on for years.

625 A.2 at 1035–36 (internal citation omitted). 
49

such that any challenge was time-barred. Id. at 666. The court rejected that argument, 

noting that the board “had the business option of choosing not to continue that relationship 

annually, the complaint is not untimely as to the payments made to Starr in the period 2000 

to 2004—i.e., those payments beginning three years before the filing of the original 

complaint.” Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court treated each year of performance 

under the contract as a newly accrued claim. Id.; see also Price v. Wilm. Tr. Co., 1995 WL 

317017, at *2 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1995) (applying separate accrual approach to claim that 

trustee breached its fiduciary duties and violated its contractual obligations by imposing a 

series of excessive charges over a seven-year period). 

Applying the separate accrual theory has important implications for liability and 

damages. The plaintiff can prove liability and recover for acts that occurred during the 

limitations period, even if other aspects of the ongoing conduct occurred outside of the

limitations period. See ODN Hldg., 2017 WL 1437308, at *43; Seaboard, 625 A.2 at 1035–

36; Graham, supra, at 282.

Claims of copyright infringement provide the paradigmatic example of this 

approach. Acts of infringement that are substantially similar can span an extended period, 

but copyright law imposes a three-year statute of limitations. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). A 

circuit split emerged between a minority position that applied the continuing wrong 

doctrine and a majority position that applied the separate accrual doctrine. Compare Taylor 

v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1983) (Posner, J.) (continuing wrong), with Danjaq 

LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 954 (9th Cir. 2001) (separate accrual). The Supreme 

Court of the United States resolved the circuit split by adopting the separate accrual 
50

approach and holding that an ongoing infringement should be treated as a series of 

infringing acts such that the limitations period extends backward from the time of suit. 

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 671, 677 (2014); see 2 Howard B. 

Abrams & Tyler T. Ochoa, The Law of Copyright § 16:18, Westlaw (database updated 

Oct. 2022).

Ongoing breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employment Retirement Income 

Security Act (ERISA) are also governed by the separate accrual approach.13 In an 

illustrative decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 

considered a claim alleging that the fiduciaries of an employee benefit plan breached their 

fiduciary duties by failing to divest from improper investments in individual life insurance 

policies. Buccino v. Cont’l Assur. Co., 578 F. Supp. 1518, 1521 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). The court 

rejected the defendants’ argument that the claim was time barred because the initial 

decision occurred outside the limitations period. Id. at 1520–21. The court reasoned:

13 60A Am. Jur. 2d Pensions § 754 (“Where the fiduciary breach is a recurring one, 

the limitations period for an action under [ERISA] with respect to the breach or violation 

of a fiduciary duty is triggered anew each time another in the series of violations occurs, 

as, for example, each time a pension fund is injured as a result of unlawful investments or 

excessive benefit payments.” (footnotes omitted)); see Morrissey v. Curran, 567 F.2d 546 

(2d Cir. 1977) (holding claim timely under ERISA for breach of duty from failing to divest 

plan of unlawful investment even though original decision to invest pre-dated ERISA and 

was lawful); see also Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Tr. Fund v. Ferbar Corp. 

of Cal., Inc., 522 U.S. 192, 195 (1997) (concluding that when an employer fails to make 

obligatory installment payments under ERISA, “each missed payment creates a separate 

cause of action with its own . . . limitations period”); Bd. of Trustees of Dist. No. 15 

Machinists’ Pension Fund v. Kahle Eng’g Corp., 43 F.3d 852, 857–861 (3d Cir. 1994) 

(statute of limitations runs from each missed ERISA payment, but damages are limited to 

those that fall within limitations period). 
51

The flaw in defendants’ argument is that as Fund fiduciaries they were under 

a continuing obligation to advise the Fund to divest itself of unlawful or 

imprudent investments. Their failure to do so gave rise to a new cause of 

action each time the Fund was injured by its continued possession of 

individual policies, that is, each time it made a premium payment.

Id. at 1521. Consistent with the separate accrual rule, the court limited the trustees’ liability 

to the harm suffered within the limitations period.14

When deciding on the accrual method for a particular claim, commentators 

recommend considering the gravamen of the claim and the nature of the harm, the accrual 

method’s ability to maximize the equities and efficiencies of litigation, and the extent to 

which the method appropriately balances the policy considerations associated with statutes 

of limitations.15 On one side of the ledger are considerations associated with finality, 

14 Id. at 1522. Continuing antitrust violations also implicate the separate accrual rule. 

See Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 

1051 (5th Cir. 1982) (“[T]he continuing conspiracy or continuing violation exception . . . 

permits a cause of action to accrue whenever the defendant commits an overt act in 

furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy or, in the absence of an antitrust conspiracy, commits 

an act that by its very nature is a continuing antitrust violation.”); Barnosky Oils, Inc. v. 

Union Oil Co. of Cal., 665 F.2d 74, 81 (6th Cir. 1981) (“When a continuous antitrust 

violation is alleged, a cause of action accrues each time a plaintiff is injured by an act of 

the defendants.”).

15 See Graham, supra, at 277, 283; Developments, supra, at 1200–01. There are 

other possible accrual approaches beyond the three discussed above the line. Under one 

alternative, “the period for all harm may be postponed until there is a manifestation of 

compensable harm.” Developments, supra, at 1205. Many jurisdictions follow a rule in 

which a plaintiff must suffer some compensable harm before being able to file suit, and in 

those states, a cause of action does not accrue until that element is satisfied. Id. at 1204. 

There is much to recommend that approach as a method of avoiding premature lawsuits 

over wrongs that never blossom into damages, while at the same time providing a concrete 

setting for litigating actual harms. Delaware, however, has declined to tie accrual to the 
52

including the advantages that repose has for the certainty of legal relationships, the savings 

of judicial and litigant resources that result from avoiding litigation over stale claims, and 

the improved reliability of results when evidence is fresh. On the other side of the ledger 

are considerations associated with access to justice, including the importance of providing 

plaintiffs with a fair opportunity to present their claims and the savings of judicial and 

litigant resources that result from avoiding premature lawsuits on issues that may never 

ripen into meaningful disputes.16 For Delaware corporate law, an additional policy 

realization of compensable damages. ISN Software, 226 A.3d at 732–33, 733 n.23. That 

alternative would be inconsistent with Delaware law.

Courts have developed a variety of other approaches when wrestling with the 

accrual of civil RICO claims. See generally G. Robert Blakey, Time-Bars: Rico-Criminal 

and Civil-Federal and State, 88 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1581 (2013); Paul B. O’Neill,

“Mother of Mercy, Is This the Beginning of RICO?”: The Proper Point of Accrual of A 

Private Civil RICO Action, 65 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 172 (1990). As with a Caremark claim, a 

plaintiff pursuing a civil RICO claim must use a variety of sources to piece together 

wrongful conduct that is difficult to identify and which may have occurred over a lengthy 

period. Taking into account those features of the claim, courts have developed a range of 

possible accrual rules. See Blakely, supra, at 1702–30; O’Neill, supra, at 197–234. Those 

regimes each have their pros and cons, and each could be tailored to a Red-Flags Theory 

or a Massey Theory. This decision has tried to stay closer to home and consider only accrual 

regimes that Delaware courts have used previously to evaluate claims for breach of 

fiduciary duty. 

16 See generally Melissa DiVincenzo, Repose vs. Freedom—Delaware’s 

Prohibition on Extending the Statute of Limitations by Contract: What Practitioners 

Should Know, 12 Del. L. Rev. 29, 31 (2010) (identifying rationales for statutes of 

limitations); Graham, supra at 277 (same); Developments, supra, at 1200–03 (same).
53

consideration is our reliance on private litigants to enforce legal norms and provide 

fiduciary accountability.17

a. The Red-Flags Theory 

One possibility would be to use the discrete act approach for the Red-Flags Theory. 

That approach makes the most sense when (i) the gravamen of the action involves a finite 

quantum of conduct that causes all of the harm which may result, such that the continuation 

or repetition of the act will not increase the plaintiff’s damages, and (ii) the initial impact 

of the act provides the potential plaintiff with both knowledge of the conduct and an 

incentive to sue. See Developments, supra, at 1205. When a claim has those features, the 

discrete act approach gives a plaintiff an incentive to proceed promptly by filing a single 

suit that can address all of the harm resulting from the discrete act. By contrast, either a 

continuing wrong or a separate accrual approach makes more sense when it is difficult to 

identify a clear starting point for a claim, and the harm develops gradually over time. 

Id. at 1207. 

17 See, e.g., Bird v. Lida, Inc., 681 A.2d 399, 402–03 (Del. Ch. 1996) (Allen, C.) 

(discussing system of private enforcement); Reinier Kraakman et al., When Are 

Shareholder Suits in Shareholder Interests?, 82 Geo. L.J. 1733, 1733 (1994) (“Shareholder 

suits are the primary mechanism for enforcing the fiduciary duties of corporate 

managers.”); Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Plaintiffs’ Attorney’s Role in 

Class Action and Derivative Litigation: Economic Analysis and Recommendations for 

Reform, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 10 (1991) (“The shareholder’s derivative suit is one of many 

devices in corporate law for controlling these conflicts between managers and 

shareholders.”); Donald E. Schwartz, In Praise of Derivative Suits: A Commentary on the 

Paper of Professors Fischel and Bradley, 71 Cornell L. Rev. 322, 323 (1986) (“Liability 

rules, enforced by shareholder litigation, are theoretically sound and profoundly affect the 

conduct of corporate managers, at least some aspects of their duties.”).
54

The gravamen of a Red-Flags Theory is that management and the directors 

“consciously failed to monitor or oversee [the corporation’s] operations thus disabling 

themselves from being informed of risks or problems requiring their attention.” Stone, 911 

A.2d at 370. To plead a Red-Flags Theory, a plaintiff might allege, for example, that the 

directors

ignored “red flags” indicating misconduct in defiance of their duties. A claim 

that an audit committee or board had notice of serious misconduct and simply 

failed to investigate, for example, would survive a motion to dismiss, even if 

the committee or board was well constituted and was otherwise functioning.

David B. Shaev Profit Sharing Acct. v. Armstrong, 2006 WL 391931, at *5 (Del. Ch. Feb. 

13, 2006) (footnote omitted).

A Red-Flags Theory thus has two aspects. One involves the initial decision to 

consciously ignore a particular red flag. The other involves the ongoing series of explicit 

or implicit decisions to continue consciously ignoring the red flag. Fiduciaries who have 

committed a knowing failure to act on day one will engage in the same knowing failure on 

day two and on each day thereafter until they eventually respond to the red flag. A RedFlags Theory is thus not solely a discrete act; it has an ongoing dimension. 

Another feature of a Red-Flags Theory is that there is rarely a single and definitive 

red flag. Grounds for alarm typically add up over time. Admittedly there sometimes will 

be a clear and dramatic event, such as an airplane crash, that shines like a beacon and puts 

directors on notice. See In re Boeing Co. Deriv. Litig., 2021 WL 4059934, at *34 (Del. Ch. 
55

Sept. 7, 2021). (“The Lion Air Crash was a red flag about [a new software system] that the 

Board should have heeded but instead ignored.”). More commonly, the situation evolves.18

The same is true for the harm. Yes, there will be rare cases in which the failure to 

ignore a clear red flag like an airplane crash leads to immediate harm, such as a second 

airplane crash and a business shutdown. See Boeing, 2021 WL 4059934, at *17. More 

commonly, the initial decision to ignore a red flag may have no immediate effect, and 

meaningful injury may not result until years later. In this case, the harm that 

AmerisourceBergen suffered escalated over a decade, with AmerisourceBergen bearing 

litigation costs, suffering reputational damage, and paying out individual settlements along 

the way before ultimately agreeing to massive settlements in 2021.

Those features make a discrete act approach ill-suited to a Red-Flags Theory. Using 

a discrete act approach would treat a Red-Flags Theory as if the fiduciaries made a singular 

decision, ignoring its ongoing dimension. The approach also would treat a Red-Flags 

Theory as if the singular act of ignoring the first red flag was both easily identifiable to a 

18 See, e.g., Hughes v. Hu, 2020 WL 1987029 (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2020) (denying 

motion to dismiss where board received multiple audit reports identifying audit risks and 

control weaknesses over three-year period); Teamsters Local 443 Health Servs. & Ins. Plan 

v. Chou, 2020 WL 5028065 (Del. Ch. Aug. 24, 2020) (denying motion to dismiss 2019 

complaint, which alleged board ignored red flags dating back to 2006 that indicated noncompliance with federal Food and Drug Administration regulation); cf. Reiter v. Fairbank, 

2016 WL 6081823, at *13 (Del. Ch. Oct. 18, 2016) (finding company’s “escalating . . .

compliance risk” and “heightened regulatory scrutiny” over two-year period were “yellow 

flags of caution”).
56

plaintiff outside the organization and would lead by itself to all of the harm that the entity 

would suffer. Neither is true. 

A discrete act approach also fares poorly when evaluated from the standpoint of the 

equities and efficiencies of litigation and the policy considerations associated with 

limitations periods. To be sure, a discrete act approach is more likely to deliver the benefits 

of repose to defendants, because it is more likely to result in claims being time-barred. But 

the discrete act approach achieves these benefits at the cost of providing a fair opportunity 

for plaintiffs to present their claims. 

Ordinarily, a discrete act approach might be expected to encourage the prompt 

enforcement of claims while conserving judicial and litigant resources by barring stale 

claims, but those benefits are unlikely for a Red-Flags Theory. The chronic problem in 

stockholder derivative litigation involves entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ counsel seeking to sue 

too quickly because of the competitive dynamics involved in gaining control of a case. See 

La. Mun. Police Empls.’ Ret. Sys. v. Pyott, 46 A.3d 313, 336 (Del. Ch. 2012) (describing 

competitive dynamics that lead to fast filing), rev’d on other grounds, 74 A.3d 612 (Del. 

2013). The Delaware courts have consistently dismissed cases where stockholders sued 

quickly without taking the time to conduct a meaningful investigation. Id. at 343–44. “Put 

simply, fast-filing generates dismissals.” Id. at 344. 

Under a discrete act regime, more plaintiffs are likely to file suit prematurely rather 

than risk having the limitations period run. That understandable response will generate 

cases about conceptual harms that may never ripen into meaningful disputes. As a 
57

consequence, both courts and litigants consume resources addressing matters that are not 

ready for litigation. 

And there is another problem. The decisions addressing premature complaints are 

likely to result in dismissals, which under current law have preclusive effect on the ability 

of any other stockholder to pursue the same or similar claims. See Cal. State Tchrs.’ Ret. 

Sys. v. Alvarez, 179 A.3d 824, 843–44 (Del. 2018) (holding that Rule 23.1 dismissal had 

preclusive effect under standard that required a final judgment on the merits); Pyott v. La. 

Mun. Police Employs.’ Ret. Sys., 74 A.3d 612, 617 (Del. 2013). That outcome undercuts 

the accountability system of Delaware law. Meanwhile, because the premature lawsuits are 

unlikely ever to reach the merits, the potential benefits from resolving cases while evidence 

is fresh never arise. Instead, premature lawsuits are likely to increase the number of 

pleading-stage false negatives, resulting in preclusive dismissals in situations where a 

complaint filed later and after greater diligence could demonstrate the need for postpleading-stage investigation. 

Requiring a plaintiff to file suit within the limited period of time tied to an initial 

wrongful act makes sense for purposes of a discrete act. When the wrongdoing is ongoing, 

cutting off the accountability mechanism allows the wrongdoing to continue. Delaware 

should not be in the business of facilitating ongoing wrongdoing, suggesting that the 

discrete act approach should not be the law for a Red-Flags Claim. 

That conclusion leads to the next possibility, which would be to apply the continuing 

wrong approach and treat a Red-Flags Theory as viable until the fiduciary takes action to 
58

address the red flags. Conceptually, that approach is a better fit, but it goes too far in the 

other direction.

From the standpoint of the gravamen of the claim, the continuing wrong approach 

presents the mirror image of the discrete act approach. The continuing wrong approach 

affords full significance to the ongoing nature of the decision to ignore red flags, but deemphasizes the reality that the ongoing act started at some point. It thus fits no better than 

the discrete act approach. 

The continuing wrong approach does better than the discrete act approach in 

accommodating the origins and nature of the harm. Using a continuing wrong approach 

acknowledges that it is difficult for an outsider to determine when the first red flag is 

ignored. It also acknowledges that the harm from ignoring red flags is likely to grow 

over time.

In terms of the equities and efficiencies of litigation and the policy considerations 

associated with limitations periods, the continuing wrong approach generates a range of 

benefits and detriments. Most notably, the approach does not deliver the benefits of repose 

to defendants until the ongoing conduct stops. It thus opens the door to the potential 

litigation of stale claims and a greater risk of erroneous results as memories fade and 

evidence is lost. Counterbalancing those effects are the benefits of avoiding an additional 

incentive for the filing of premature lawsuits. On the margin, using the approach could lead 

to additional litigation over events long past, with concomitant burdens on the parties and 

the courts. 
59

The third possibility is the separate accrual approach. It provides a 

Goldilocks solution. 

In terms of the gravamen of the claim, the separate accrual approach recognizes that 

a Red-Flags Theory has two dimensions. The wrong began at some point, but also persists

until the fiduciaries correct it. The ability of a board to take action to end a red flag scenario 

makes the situation analogous to Aidinoff, where the board had the option each year to 

terminate the offending contracts. The separate accrual approach acknowledges both 

aspects of the claim.

The separate accrual approach also accommodates the difficulty in identifying the 

accrual of a claim from outside the organization and the nature of the harm. The separate 

accrual approach does not require a plaintiff to sue quickly and potentially prematurely. 

Once a corporate trauma has occurred, a plaintiff can sue on the corporation’s behalf for 

the harm that the corporation suffered during the actionable period leading up to the 

lawsuit. When a corporation has suffered a trauma, the actionable period should encompass 

the bulk of the harm. Unlike the discrete act approach, there is no risk that an early point 

of accrual will make the wrongdoing non-actionable in its entirety. And unlike with the 

continuing wrong approach, there is no risk that the damages figure can extend back across 

time to the earliest possible act. 

In terms of equities, efficiencies, and policy considerations, the separate accrual 

approach strikes an appropriate balance by respecting the important interests served by 

limitations periods while preserving a litigation vehicle that can provide accountability and 

generate compensation for injuries. The separate accrual method provides a measure of 
60

repose to defendants by recognizing that some wrongdoing has occurred too far in the past 

to be actionable. And by avoiding damages claims involving events long past, the separate 

accrual method reduces the risk of erroneous results based on stale evidence. At the same 

time, the separate accrual approach does not simplistically treat the wrong as a singular 

event such that after the limitations period has run, the ongoing wrongdoing can continue 

with impunity. By recognizing the ongoing nature of the wrong, the separate accrual 

approach preserves the ability of the corporation to recover for harms that it has suffered 

during the actionable period and facilitates meaningful litigation oversight. Meanwhile, the 

focus on the actionable period promotes the likelihood of accurate results by centering the 

litigation on periods of time when the evidentiary record is relatively fresh. 

This decision therefore concludes that to determine the time at which the Red-Flags 

Claim accrued, the proper method is the separate accrual approach.

b. The Massey Theory 

Similar considerations apply to the Massey Theory. The principal difference is that 

in a Red-Flags Claim, the fiduciary makes a conscious decision to ignore red flags. In a 

Massey Claim, the fiduciary makes a conscious decision to prioritize profit over 

legal compliance. 

The analysis of the gravamen of the claim and the nature of the harm proceeds along 

similar lines. Like a Red-Flags Theory, a Massey Theory combines an initial wrongful act 

with the ongoing continuation of that act. The initial wrongful act underlying a Massey 

Claim is more prominent and serious, because the plaintiff must allege that the defendants 

made a specific decision to pursue profit over legal compliance. But the wrongful act does 
61

not end on that date. The ongoing violation continues as the company pursues the illegal 

strategy. As in Aidinoff, the fiduciaries can decide at any time to stop the illegal business 

plan and take corrective action.

A Massey Theory also resembles a Red-Flags Theory in that it may be difficult to 

identify a specific point at which the wrongful decision was made. Corporate fraud and 

illegality can involve deliberateness from the outset, but it often manifests as a classic 

slippery-slope problem, where what eventually manifests as wrongdoing “starts small and 

innocently and then builds.” Donald. C. Langevoort, Selling Hope, Selling Risk: 

Corporations, Wall Street, and the Dilemmas of Investor Protection, 36 (2016). What 

results is 

a process that begins with some period of time during which there is no 

perception of wrongfulness that needs rationalization, which only later turns 

into awareness that something is amiss. Precisely because of the now-deep 

commitment, the cognitive pressure to justify deception at this point is 

stronger than it would be at the outset, and self-serving inference goes to 

work . . . . The third stage comes late in the process: the realization that one’s 

rationalizations were just that.

Id. at 37.

This case presents that possibility. The plaintiffs argue that management and the 

board adopted a business plan that prioritized profits over compliance based on decisions 

they made over a five-year period, starting with the Independent Pharmacy Strategy, 

continuing with the Walgreens alliance, and culminating in the adoption of the Revised 

OMP, with disregard for regulatory compliance and order-diversion monitoring along the 

way. The plaintiffs allege, as they must, that the wrongful business strategy started with 

the Independent Pharmacy Strategy, and they view the Revised OMP as definitive evidence 
62

of the type of conscious disregard of consequences that evidences bad faith. They concede, 

however, that the case for inferring that management and the board knowingly pursued an 

illegal business strategy grows stronger over time. It is possible that different members of 

management and the board crossed the line at different points. Perhaps some members of 

management had the whole plan in mind at the outset. Perhaps some members of the board 

only reached the point of conscious disregard with the Revised OMP.

As with a Red-Flags Theory, the evolving nature of the Massey Theory makes it 

difficult to identify from the outside when the claim accrues for filing purposes. And as 

with a Red-Flags Theory, the damages that a Massey Claim generates are likely to increase 

over time. Indeed, with a Massey Claim, the business plan initially may generate positive 

results, precisely because the plan prioritizes profit over legal compliance. Only as the 

problems associated with legal noncompliance accumulate will the negative consequences 

become apparent, eventually bursting forth as a corporate trauma. 

From the standpoint of the gravamen of the claim and the nature of the harm, the 

Red-Flags Theory and the Massey Theory operate similarly. Just as those considerations 

support rejecting the discrete act approach for a Red-Flags Theory, they counsel similarly 

against using the discrete act approach for a Massey Theory.

The analysis of the equities and efficiencies of litigation and the policies associated 

with limitations periods is also similar. Even more so than with a Red-Flags Theory, a 

discrete act approach would be likely to fixate on the initial decision to adopt an illegal 

business plan and risk insulating the ongoing pursuit of that plan from a challenge. Such 
63

an approach would provide the defendants with repose and finality, but at the expense of 

deterrence, accountability, and compensation for injury. 

The real question for the Massey Theory is whether there is an additional degree of 

culpability associated with the affirmative adoption of a business plan that prioritizes profit 

over legal compliance such that the continuing wrong approach should apply rather than 

the separate accrual approach. Notwithstanding Delaware authorities equating action and 

conscious inaction,19 humans intuitively distinguish between the two and associate greater 

culpability with an affirmative act rather than a conscious decision not to act.20

19 See Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 813 (Del. 1984) (subsequent history omitted)

(“[A] conscious decision to refrain from acting may nonetheless be a valid exercise of 

business judgment and enjoy the protections of the rule”); Quadrant Structured Prods. Co. 

v. Vertin, 102 A.3d 155, 183 (Del. Ch. 2014) (“The Complaint alleges that the Board had 

the ability to defer interest payments on the Junior Notes, that the Junior Notes would not 

receive anything in an orderly liquidation, that [Defendant] owned all of the Junior Notes, 

and that the Board decided not to defer paying interest on the Junior Notes to benefit 

[Defendant]. A conscious decision not to take action is just as much of a decision as a 

decision to act.”); In re China Agritech, Inc. S’holder Deriv. Litig., 2013 WL 2181514, at 

*23 (Del. Ch. May 21, 2013) (“The Special Committee decided not to take any action with 

respect to the Audit Committee’s termination of two successive outside auditors and the 

allegations made by Ernst & Young. The conscious decision not to take action was itself a 

decision.”); Krieger v. Wesco Fin. Corp., 30 A.3d 54, 58 (Del. Ch. 2011) (“Wesco 

stockholders had a choice: they could make an election and select a form of consideration, 

or they could choose not to make an election and accept the default cash consideration.”); 

Hubbard v. Hollywood Park Realty Enters., Inc., 1991 WL 3151, at *10 (Del. Ch. Jan. 14, 

1991) (“From a semantic and even legal viewpoint, ‘inaction’ and ‘action’ may be 

substantive equivalents, different only in form.”); Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a 

Humanism 44 (Carol Macomber trans., Yale Univ. Press 2007) (“[W]hat is impossible is 

not to choose. I can always choose, but I must also realize that, if I decide not to choose, 

that still constitutes a choice.”).

20 See, e.g., George C. Christie, The Defense of Necessity Considered from the Legal 

and Moral Points of View, 48 Duke L.J. 975, 1013 (1999) (applying intuition to the Trolley 

Problem and analogizing to common law distinction between misfeasance and 
64

Using the continuing wrong approach might be compelling for a claim against 

officers and directors who had embraced the Chicago School concept of “law as price.”21

Assume that a board and management team made a conscious decision to violate the 

nonfeasance). This intuition may stem in part from lived experience in which inaction is 

less likely to be intentional. That intuition breaks down when, as with a Massey Claim and 

a Red-Flags Claim, the two scenarios require the same level of moral culpability—in this 

instance, bad faith. Cf. Richard S. Kay, Causing Death for Compassionate Reasons in 

American Law, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 693, 712 (2006) (explaining that the persistence of a 

distinction between action and inaction “may reflect some idea that inaction often can be 

explained by inadvertence or mistake, while positive actions are, more generally, 

intentional” and that when the categories each involve intentional decisions, “the 

differential legal treatment of misfeasance and nonfeasance seems contrived”).

21 See, e.g., Daniel R. Fischel, The Corporate Governance Movement, 35 Vand. L. 

Rev. 1259, 1271 (1982) (“A firm may also find it advantageous to violate a law deliberately 

and pay the penalty for the same reason that an individual in some cases may prefer to 

breach a contract and pay damages. Because the gains from breach or violation presumably 

exceed the social costs (as reflected in the penalty), compliance with the statute or contract 

is undesirable from a personal as well as a social perspective.”); Frank H. Easterbrook & 

Daniel R. Fischel, Antitrust Suits by Targets of Tender Offers, 80 Mich. L. Rev. 1155, 1168 

n.36 (1982) (“Managers have no general obligation to avoid violating regulatory laws, 

when violations are profitable to the firm.”); id. at 1177 n.57 (“[M]anagers do not have an 

ethical duty to obey economic regulatory laws just because the laws exist. They must 

determine the importance of these laws. The penalties Congress names for disobedience 

are a measure of how much it wants firms to sacrifice in order to adhere to the rules; the 

idea of optimal sanctions is based on the supposition that managers not only may but also 

should violate the rules when it is profitable to do so.”); David L. Engel, An Approach to 

Corporate Social Responsibility, 32 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 34–55 (1979) (arguing that 

corporations can and should maximize profits by factoring in the cost of regulatory and 

legal sanctions discounted by likelihood of detection and successful enforcement). See 

generally Cynthia A. Williams, Corporate Compliance With the Law In the Era of 

Efficiency, 76 N.C. L. Rev. 1265, 1285–1300 (1998) (collecting and summarizing 

authorities endorsing the view of “law-as-price”). As Massey and related authorities 

demonstrate, Delaware law explicitly rejects the notion that a board of directors can act 

loyally by consciously deciding to violate positive law in pursuit of greater profits. See Leo 

E. Strine, Jr. et al., Loyalty’s Core Demand: The Defining Role of Good Faith in 

Corporation Law, 98 Geo. L.J. 629, 649 (2010).
65

regulatory laws by engaging in illegal behavior and, over a decade, paid numerous fines 

and penalties that were dwarfed by the profits that non-compliance generated. Further 

assume that there was sufficient public disclosure about the practice, either through public 

information about the fines themselves or through news articles, such that tolling doctrines 

would not operate under the separate accrual approach to extend the actionable period. In 

this scenario, the separate accrual approach only would permit the imposition of liability 

and recovery for the harm that the corporation suffered during the final three years of the 

scheme. Some might argue that in an egregious setting like this one, both liability and 

damages should extend throughout the period of the scheme. Only the continuing wrong 

approach achieves that result. 

Whether to apply the continuing wrong approach rather than the separate accrual 

approach is thus a fundamentally difficult policy question that would take lots of pages to 

explore and resolve. In terms of practical outcomes for litigation, the real difference is in 

the magnitude of damages. Nominally, there are differences for both liability and damages, 

because the continuing wrong approach permits a plaintiff to prove liability and recover 

damages for the entire period that the illegal business plan was in place, while the separate 

accrual approach limits liability and damages to the actionable period. But the factual 

inquiry for the separate accrual approach often will need to examine earlier periods to 

determine what the directors and officers knew and either continued doing or permitted to 

persist during the actionable period. Because of the nature of the factual inquiry, the choice 

between the two accrual rules principally affects damages. 
66

The fact that the main difference between the approaches is the quantum of damages 

provides another reason for not choosing between the continuing wrong and the separate 

accrual approach at this stage. A court does not typically parse the scope of damages at the 

pleading stage. A plaintiff can plead the existence of damages generally as long as the 

complaint supports a reasonable inference of harm. See, e.g., In re Ezcorp, Inc. Consulting 

Agr. Deriv. Litig., 2016 WL 301245, at *30 (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2016); NACCO Indus., Inc. 

v. Applica Inc., 997 A.2d 1, 19 (Del. Ch. 2009). 

At a minimum, the separate accrual approach applies to the Massey Claim. As 

discussed below, that conclusion is sufficient to render the claim timely. This decision 

therefore need not confront the additional question of whether the continuing wrong 

approach should apply to this subspecies of claim. At the pleading stage, it is sufficient to 

measure the time at which the Massey Claim accrued using the separate accrual approach.

2. When The Plaintiff Began To Pursue The Claim

Having decided to apply the separate accrual methodology, I must now determine 

the period of time during which the ongoing conduct is actionable. In this case, the 

plaintiffs filed this plenary action on December 30, 2021, so the actionable period would 

start on December 30, 2018. But for a derivative action in which the plaintiff has sought 

books and records, the court can calculate the actionable period using an earlier date tied 

to the plaintiff’s diligent pursuit of its informational rights. Because the laches analysis is 

flexible and does not turn on statutory standing under Section 220, the court can look to 

when the plaintiff began pursuing books and records. The court need not fixate on whether 

the plaintiff formally filed a books-and-records action. 
67

When applying the doctrine of laches, “[w]hat constitutes unreasonable delay and 

prejudice are questions of fact that depend upon the totality of the circumstances.” Hudak 

v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140, 153 (Del. 2002). “In determining whether the delay is 

unreasonable the situation of the plaintiff, as well as that of defendant, must be considered.”

Henry L. McClintock, Handbook of the Principles of Equity § 28 at 72 (2d ed. 1948). The 

doctrine of laches is rooted in the maxim that “equity aids the vigilant, not those who 

slumber on their rights.” Adams v. Jankouskas, 452 A.2d 148, 157 (Del. 1982). A plaintiff 

who vigilantly pursues a claim is not engaging in unreasonable delay for purposes of a 

laches analysis. 

These principles enable a court to take into account a plaintiff’s diligent use of 

Section 220. While serving as a Vice Chancellor, Chief Justice Steele noted that a plaintiff 

could defeat a laches defense by showing that the plaintiff “asserted its rights in a timely 

manner by making demand [for books and records] and filing this action.” Gotham P’rs, 

L.P. v. Hallwood Realty P’rs, L.P., 714 A.2d 96, 105 (Del. Ch. 1998). He explained that 

the pursuit of books and records provided “strong evidence that plaintiff was aggressively 

asserting its claims” for purposes of a laches analysis. Id.

Justice Jacobs subsequently applied these principles while serving as a Vice 

Chancellor. He rejected a timeliness defense by noting that the plaintiffs had pursued a 

Section 220 action to obtain books and records. Technicorp Int’l II, Inc. v. Johnston, 2000 

WL 713750, at *9 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2000). He regarded it as “settled Delaware law that 

the institution of other litigation to ascertain the facts involved in the later suit will toll the 

statute while that litigation proceeds.” Id. For the source of the rule, he cited Cahall v. 
68

Burbage, where Chancellor Josiah Wolcott observed that “[d]elay pending other 

proceedings has frequently been held excusable . . . where the termination of such 

proceedings was necessary for the ascertainment of facts involved in the later suit.” 119 A. 

574, 576–77 (Del. Ch. 1922) (quoting Cent. R.R. Co. of N.J. v. Jersey City, 199 F. 237, 245 

(D.N.J. 1912), aff’d, 212 F. 76 (3d Cir. 1914)). Justice Jacobs added that when a 

stockholder had spent time pursuing books and records, 

[i]t would be perverse if the rule were otherwise. On at least two occasions 

the Supreme Court has expressly encouraged potential derivative plaintiffs 

to utilize the ‘tools at hand’ to obtain information bearing on the subject of 

their claims, in order to avoid an unseemly race to the courthouse to file ‘a 

plethora of superficial complaints that could not be sustained.’ To accept the 

defendants’ time-bar argument would penalize, not encourage, the use of 

those important tools.”

Technicorp, 2000 WL 713750, at *9 n.26 (quoting Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, 932–

35, n.10 (1993)). Even in 2000, the estimate of only two exhortations missed low, and in 

the two decades since then, the calls for stockholders to use Section 220 before filing suit 

have only increased.22

22 See, e.g., King v. VeriFone Hldgs., Inc., 12 A.3d 1140, 1145 (Del. 2011) 

(“Delaware courts have strongly encouraged stockholder-plaintiffs to utilize Section 220 

before filing a derivative action, in order to satisfy the heightened demand futility pleading 

requirements of Court of Chancery Rule 23.1.”); Beam v. Stewart, 845 A.2d 1040, 1056 

(Del. 2004) (“Both this Court and the Court of Chancery have continually advised plaintiffs 

who seek to plead facts establishing demand futility that the plaintiffs might successfully 

have used a Section 220 books and records inspection to uncover such facts.”); White v. 

Panic, 783 A.2d 543, 556–57 (Del. 2001) (“This case demonstrates the salutary effects of 

a rule encouraging plaintiffs to conduct a thorough investigation, using the tools at hand 

including the use of actions under 8 Del. C. § 220 for books and records, before filing a 

complaint. . . . Further pre-suit investigation in this case may have yielded the 

particularized facts required to show that demand is excused or it may have revealed that 

the board acted in the best interests of the corporation.” (cleaned up)); Brehm v. Eisner, 
69

Vice Chancellor Lamb subsequently gave effect to a plaintiff’s diligent use of 

Section 220 when denying a motion to dismiss on laches grounds in Sutherland v. 

Sutherland, 2009 WL 857468 (Del. Ch. Mar. 23, 2009). The plaintiff had served a booksand-records demand and filed suit on August 31, 2001. The final opinion in the Section 

220 action was not entered until May 16, 2006. The plaintiff filed her complaint promptly 

after receiving the books and records. Vice Chancellor Lamb reasoned as follows:

The applicable three-year statute of limitations was tolled, however, during 

the pendency of the plaintiff’s Section 220 action. The final opinion in the 

220 action was entered on May 16, 2006, and the plaintiff filed her complaint 

on September 6, 2006, less than 120 days later. Given the time between the 

entry of the opinion and the actual production of the demanded books and 

records, and affording the plaintiff time to evaluate any potential claims in 

light of what was produced, the short window between the closing of the 220 

action and the filing of the original complaint in this action is reasonable, and 

the statute is likewise tolled during that period. The plaintiff’s claims are 

therefore time-barred as to any transactions occurring more than three years 

prior to the date the 220 action was instituted, i.e., prior to August 31, 2001.

Id. at *5 (cleaned up). 

746 A.2d 244, 266–67 (Del. 2000) (disregarding plaintiffs’ complaint “that the system of 

requiring a stockholder to plead particularized facts in a derivative suit is basically unfair 

because the Court will not permit discovery under Chancery Rules 26–37 to marshal the 

facts necessary to establish that pre-suit demand is excused” in part because “plaintiffs may 

well have the ‘tools at hand’ to develop the necessary facts for pleading purposes” by 

seeking “relevant books and records of the corporation under Section 220”); Scattered 

Corp. v. Chi. Stock Exch., 701 A.2d 70, 78–79 (Del. 1997) (subsequent history omitted) 

(“Plaintiffs inexplicably did not bring [a Section 220 action before filing their derivative 

complaint]. Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot argue that they have used the available tools at 

hand to obtain the necessary information before filing a derivative action.” (cleaned up)); 

Sec. First Corp. v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev. Co., 687 A.2d 563, 567 n.3 (Del. 1997) (“This 

Court has encouraged the use of Section 220 as an information-gathering tool in the 

derivative context, provided a proper purpose is shown.” (cleaned up)).
70

For purposes of the separate accrual method, the court must determine when the 

plaintiff began to pursue its claims vigilantly. The defendants assert that the point of 

vigilant pursuit cannot precede the date on which the plaintiff filed an action under Section 

220(c) to obtain books and records. The Sutherland decision used the filing date, but the 

court did not need to look back any earlier to address the laches issue. There are also 

decisions where this court has focused on the filing date rather than the demand date when 

evaluating standing for purposes of a Section 220 action. See, e.g., Swift v. Houston Wire 

& Cable Co., 2021 WL 5763903, at *4 (Del. Ch. Dec. 3, 2021). Those decisions apply the 

statutory language of Section 220, which requires that a plaintiff be a stockholder when an 

enforcement action is filed. 8 Del. C. § 220(c). 

The doctrine of laches is flexible and requires case-specific analysis. For laches, a 

rule that turned on the filing of a Section 220 enforcement action would incentivize the 

filing of more enforcement actions (which the court does not need), simply to secure a 

tolling benefit. This court has strived to promote extra-judicial resolutions of books-andrecords disputes. See, e.g., Hightower v. SharpSpring, Inc., 2022 WL 3970155, at *9 (Del. 

Ch. Aug. 31, 2022) (“[T]his court encourages corporations to produce Formal Board 

Materials in response to meritorious demands for inspection without forcing stockholders 

to litigate over them.”). A rule based on the filing of an enforcement action would 

undermine that effort.

A stockholder therefore should receive credit for serving a demand and obtaining 

books and records without the need for an enforcement action. But that does not mean that 

simply sending a demand will yield a benefit in every case. The stockholder plaintiff must 
71

pursue the demand diligently to gain a benefit. See, e.g., Firemen’s Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. 

Sorenson, 2021 WL 4593777, at *11 (Del. Ch. Oct. 5, 2021). That does not mean 

pressuring the defendant corporation relentlessly, and it does not mean always filing an 

enforcement action, but it also should not involve months-long periods of stockholder-side 

inactivity. The process should move forward with deliberate speed.

In this case, the plaintiffs served their books-and-records demand on May 21, 2019. 

On June 7, 2019, AmerisourceBergen refused the demand, claiming incomprehensibly that 

the stockholders lacked a credible basis to suspect corporate wrongdoing and therefore did 

not have a proper purpose for obtaining any books and records. After failed efforts to 

negotiate, the plaintiffs filed their books-and-records action on July 8, 2019. Lebanon Cnty. 

Empls. Ret. Fund vs. AmerisourceBergen Corp., C.A. No. 2019-0527, Dkt. 1 (Del. Ch. July 

8, 2019). That litigation turned into a Section 220 gauntlet, with AmerisourceBergen 

seeking to litigate the merits of an eventual derivative action in the context of the Section 

220 proceeding. The case was not resolved until July 12, 2022, nearly three years later. Id., 

Dkt. 75. 

The plaintiffs’ diligent efforts could support using May 21, 2019, as a starting date 

for calculating the actionable period, which would cause the actionable period to reach 

back to May 21, 2016. But the plaintiffs do not seek that outcome. They are content to use 

October 20, 2019, as the starting date. Using that date, the actionable period begins on 

October 20, 2016, and ends on December 30, 2022.
72

3. Tolling Doctrines

The next step in the analysis is to consider tolling doctrines. Delaware has many 

doctrines that can toll a statute of limitations. Some, such as infancy and incapacity, rarely 

play a role in corporate and commercial disputes. Others, such as inherently unknowable 

injuries, fraudulent concealment, and equitable tolling, make frequent appearances. 

Tolling doctrines operate in a straightforward manner when a court is applying the 

discrete act approach and the plaintiff has sued outside the presumptive limitations period. 

The court simply asks whether there are grounds to permit the plaintiff to sue over the 

discrete act notwithstanding the expiration of the limitations period. 

Tolling doctrines have limited effect when a court is applying a continuing wrong 

approach. Under that doctrine, the cause of action does not accrue until the conduct ceases. 

As long as a part of the continuing wrong takes place within the limitations period, then 

the plaintiff can prove liability and damages for the entire time that the continuing wrong 

was ongoing, regardless of whether the limitations period would have run if calculated 

from when the continuing wrong began. If the conduct remains ongoing at the time suit is 

filed, then tolling doctrines have no role to play. The fact that the conduct remains ongoing 

renders the entire continuing wrong actionable. See, e.g., Bodner v. Banque Paribas, 

114 F. Supp. 2d 117, 134–35 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). See generally Graham, supra, at 272. 

Tolling doctrines still can have some effect under a continuing wrong regime. 

Envision a scenario in which the continuing wrong persisted for some time then stopped. 

For the continuing wrong doctrine to apply, at least part of the ongoing wrongful conduct 

must have occurred within the limitations period, so with the cessation of the act, the 
73

limitations period begins to run. If a plaintiff does not file suit until after the limitations 

period has expired, then a plaintiff may invoke tolling doctrines to render the 

lawsuit timely. 

Under a separate accrual system, tolling doctrines have two roles to play. As with 

the continuing wrong approach, once the ongoing action has stopped, then the statute of 

limitations begins to run. If the plaintiff does not file suit until after the limitations period 

has run as measured from the cessation of the wrongful activity, then a plaintiff can invoke 

tolling doctrines to demonstrate that the suit is timely. But tolling doctrines also play a 

second role, similar to the role they have in a discrete act system. The separate accrual 

system only treats the portion of the ongoing conduct that takes place within the limitations 

period as actionable. As with the discrete act system, a challenge to the portion of the 

ongoing conduct that precedes the actionable period is untimely. As with the discrete act 

system, a plaintiff can use tolling doctrines to demonstrate that a suit over earlier acts is 

timely. As a practical matter, the plaintiff can use tolling doctrines to extend the actionable 

period so that it reaches further back in time. 

Under Delaware law, inquiry notice universally limits tolling doctrines. A plaintiff 

cannot invoke tolling doctrines to push the timeliness period beyond the point when the 

plaintiff “was objectively aware, or should have been aware, of facts giving rise to the 

wrong.” Tyson Foods, 919 A.2d at 585. “Even where a defendant uses every fraudulent 

device at its disposal to mislead a victim or obfuscate the truth, no sanctuary from the 

statute will be offered to the dilatory plaintiff who was not or should not have been fooled.”

Id. Once the plaintiff is aware of the injury, or should have discovered it in the exercise of
74

reasonable diligence, then the period for bringing a claim starts to run. See Dean Witter, 

1998 WL 442456, at *6. Once a plaintiff knows or should have known about a claim, 

tolling ends. 

Under a discrete act system, inquiry notice terminates tolling and requires that a 

plaintiff pursue the action within a reasonable time. Under a continuing wrong system 

where the wrongful conduct remains ongoing, inquiry notice does not matter, because the 

continuing nature of the conduct means that the claim has not yet accrued for purposes of 

the running of the statute. Under a continuing wrong system where the wrongful conduct 

has stopped and a plaintiff has invoked a tolling doctrine to save an otherwise untimely 

lawsuit, inquiry notice operates the same way as in a discrete act system and may prevent 

the plaintiff from relying on the tolling doctrine to make the claim timely.

Under a separate accrual system, inquiry notice has two effects. If the ongoing 

conduct has stopped and a plaintiff has invoked a tolling doctrine to save an otherwise 

untimely lawsuit, inquiry notice operates the same way as in a discrete act system and may

prevent the plaintiff from relying on a tolling doctrine to make the claim timely. If the 

plaintiff has sought to use a tolling doctrine to extend the actionable period and to show 

that a suit over earlier acts is timely, then inquiry notice may cut off the ability of the 

plaintiff to extend the actionable period. But the claim is not foreclosed entirely, because 

the plaintiff can still pursue claims that fall within the non-extended actionable period.

For example, assume that at Time Zero, the defendants implement an illegal 

business plan that prioritizes profit over compliance, giving rise to a Massey Claim. The 

defendants continue to pursue the business plan for ten years, at which point they adopt a 
75

different business plan. If a plaintiff sues on January 1 of Year 10 and the presumptive 

limitations period is three years, then the plaintiff can sue for the breaches of the duty of 

loyalty that occurred in Years 7, 8, and 9. 

If the plaintiff spent a year diligently pursuing books and records before filing suit, 

then the actionable period extends to Year 6. 

If the plaintiff successfully alleges that the defendants fraudulently concealed the 

wrongful business strategy at all times, then the actionable period extends back to 

Time Zero. 
76

But if the plaintiff was put on inquiry notice in Year 3, then the plaintiff had an 

obligation to sue within a reasonable time over the wrongs covered by the inquiry notice. 

Any claims based on conduct in Years 1, 2, or 3 would be untimely, and the limitations 

period on the ongoing conduct after that point would continue to run. If the plaintiff sued 

in Year 10, then the plaintiff could still sue for the separately accrued breaches of the duty 

of loyalty that occurred in Years 7, 8, and 9. But the plaintiff could not reach back further 

by relying on fraudulent concealment or a similar tolling doctrine that is negated by inquiry 

notice. 

In this case, the plaintiffs invoke fraudulent concealment and equitable tolling. 

Neither provides a basis for expanding the actionable period.23

23 The defendants initially seek to dispense with tolling doctrines with an argument 

about pleading. They assert that “[p]laintiffs make no allegations regarding tolling,” and 

“[t]herefore, for this reason alone, tolling is unavailable.” Dkt. 17 at 42. A complaint does 

not have to include a separate section titled “equitable tolling” or “tolling by fraudulent 

concealment.” All that a plaintiff must do is plead facts that support a reasonable inference 

that tolling applies.
77

a. Fraudulent Concealment 

The doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolls the statute of limitations and extends 

the time for suit under the doctrine of laches “when a defendant has fraudulently concealed 

from a plaintiff the facts necessary to put him on notice of the truth.” Tyson Foods, 919 

A.2d at 585. Tolling ends when the plaintiff is placed on inquiry notice, in the sense that 

the plaintiff knew or should have known about the wrongful act.24

“Fraudulent concealment requires that something affirmative be done by a 

defendant, some ‘actual artifice’ which prevents a plaintiff from gaining knowledge of the 

facts, or some misrepresentation which is intended to put the plaintiff off the trail of 

inquiry.” Ewing, 520 A.2d at 667. Ignorance alone does not toll the statute. Id.; Halpern, 

313 A.2d at 143. “The affirmative act requirement distinguishes fraudulent concealment

from the doctrine of inherently unknowable injuries.”25

24 See Halpern v. Barran, 313 A.2d 139, 143 (Del. Ch. 1973) (“Where there has 

been fraudulent concealment from a plaintiff, the statute is suspended only until his rights 

are discovered or until they could have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable 

diligence.”). Outside of Delaware, some authorities take the view that when a defendant 

has taken affirmative steps to conceal wrongdoing, the defendant has committed an 

intentional tort. The limitations period therefore does not begin to run until the plaintiff 

actually discovers—not should have discovered—the wrongful act. See Davenport v. A.C. 

Davenport & Son Co., 903 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Short 

v. Belleville Shoe Mfg. Co., 908 F.2d 1385, 1389 (7th Cir. 1990).

25 2 Wolfe & Pittenger, supra, § 15.07[e][3] at 15-91. “Under the doctrine of

inherently unknowable injuries, the running of the statute of limitations is tolled while the

discovery of the existence of a cause of action is a practical impossibility.” Dean Witter,

1998 WL 442456, at *5 (emphasis added); accord Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers,

LLC, 854 A.2d 838, 842 (Del. 2004) (“Ignorance of the cause of action will not toll the

statute . . . unless the injury is inherently unknowable and the claimant is blamelessly

ignorant of the wrongful act and the injury complained of.”). “For the limitations period to
78

“The rationale for this doctrine is to disallow a defendant from taking advantage of 

his own wrong in preventing a plaintiff from a timely suit in the courts.” Allen v. Layton, 

235 A.2d 261, 265 (Del. Super. Ct. 1967), aff’d, 246 A.2d 794 (Del. 1968). 

[I]f one by fraud conceals the fact of a right of action, it is not ingrafting an 

exception on the statute to say that he is not protected thereby, but it is simply 

saying that he never was within the statute. since its protection was never 

designed for such as he. By fraud he has put himself outside of its pale. 

Whether this be taken as an exception, or only a limitation of the statute, it 

rests upon sound reason and just policy.

Lieberman v. First Nat’l Bank of Wilm., 45 A. 901, 903 (Del. 1900). 

When a plaintiff relies on fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff must plead the 

circumstances supporting the doctrine with particularity sufficient to advise the defendant 

of the basis for the claim. Ct. Ch. R. 9(b); Halpern, 313 A.2d at 143. Simply alleging that 

a defendant engaged in fraudulent concealment is insufficient. As with an affirmative claim 

for fraud, once the plaintiff pleads facts with the requisite particularity, the plaintiff is 

be tolled under this doctrine, there must have been no observable or objective factors to

put a party on notice of an injury, and plaintiffs must show that they were blamelessly

ignorant of the act or omission and the injury.” Dean Witter, 1998 WL 442456, at *5.

“Often, plaintiffs can establish ‘blameless ignorance’ by showing justifiable reliance on a

professional or expert whom they have no ostensible reason to suspect of deception.” Id.

“This doctrine tolls the limitations period until a plaintiff had ‘reason to know’ that a wrong

has been committed.” Id. The tolling doctrine that recognizes a plaintiff’s ability to rely in 

good faith on a professional operates similarly to the concept of equitable tolling, discussed 

below. For a recent decision applying this tolling doctrine to a trustee, see Hillblom v. 

Wilmington Trust Co., C.A. No. 2021-1034-MTZ, slip op. at 29-34 (Del. Ch. Dec. 6, 2022). 

Directors are quasi-trustees for the corporation and its stockholders. Schoon v. Smith, 953 

A.2d 196, 206 (Del. 2008); Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939). The relianceon-professionals doctrine thus offers a source of insight into how tolling should operate 

against corporate fiduciaries.
79

entitled to the benefit of the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts. See, 

e.g., Am. Int’l Gp., 965 A.2d at 805–06 (“But, even though fraud must be stated with 

particularity, this is still a motion to dismiss, and the Stockholder Plaintiffs are entitled to 

have me draw all reasonable inferences in their favor.”).

To assert fraudulent concealment as a tolling doctrine, a plaintiff requires facts 

supporting an inference of scienter such that the defendant “had actual knowledge of the 

wrong done and acted affirmatively in concealing the facts.”26 Delaware decisions have 

not clearly stated whether a plaintiff must plead reliance and causation to invoke tolling by 

fraudulent concealment. One Delaware case asserts that “a plaintiff must allege an 

affirmative act of ‘actual artifice’ by the defendant that either prevented the plaintiff from 

gaining knowledge of material facts or led the plaintiff away from the truth.” Tyson Foods, 

919 A.2d at 585. By using the verbs “prevented” and “led . . . away,” the decision implies

the need for reliance by the plaintiff and causation by the defendant, and one decision has 

cited Tyson Foods with a parenthetical that describes the case as requiring that a plaintiff 

plead reliance to support tolling. See Akrout v. Jarkoy, 2018 WL 3361401, at *10 n.80 

(Del. Ch. July 10, 2018). Other statements of what a plaintiff must show to plead fraudulent 

concealment do not require causation or reliance. See, e.g., Lecates v. Hertrich Pontiac 

26 Ewing, 520 A.2d at 667; accord Shockley v. Dyer, 456 A.2d 798, 799 (Del. 1983) 

(“In order for the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to be applicable [to toll the statute of 

limitations], the [alleged wrongdoer] must have had actual knowledge of the wrong done 

and affirmatively acted in concealing the facts from the patient.”); Tilden v. Anstreicher, 

367 A.2d 632, 634 (Del. 1976) (“The doctrine of fraudulent concealment requires both 

knowledge and affirmative action on the part of the [wrongdoer].”).
80

Buick Co., 515 A.2d 163, 176 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986) (“[A] claim of fraudulent concealment 

requires the twin showing of (a) the defendant’s knowledge of the alleged wrong, and (b) 

an affirmative act of concealment by the defendant.”). See generally 51 Am. Jur. 2d

Limitation of Actions § 166, Westlaw (database updated Nov. 2022) (“According to some

authority, reliance is not an element of fraudulent concealment, as is relevant to the tolling

of a statute of limitations; rather, all that is required is a showing of an underlying wrong

and that the defendant actually knew the plaintiff was in fact wronged and concealed that

fact to deceive the plaintiff.”).

The plaintiffs offer little to support fraudulent concealment. They argue that 

“[m]ultiple lawsuits describe [AmerisourceBergen’s] attempts to hide its Board sanctioned 

practice of prioritizing profits over safety.” Dkt. 28 at 70 (citing Compl. ¶ 119). Paragraph 

119 describes a board meeting in March 2012 at which the board approved management’s 

plan to expand AmerisourceBergen’s market share by targeting independent pharmacies. 

The paragraph does not contain any references about AmerisourceBergen hiding 

information. There are other paragraphs in the complaint that make generalized references 

to lawsuits containing descriptions of AmerisourceBergen’s attempts to hide its 

wrongdoing, but that is insufficient to support an inference of fraudulent concealment. 

Perhaps those other complaints contain specific allegations about concealment. The court 

does not have the other complaints, and the plaintiffs’ complaint does not contain the 

requisite specific allegations.

The plaintiffs add that “[AmerisourceBergen] falsely assured the public that it was 

undertaking efforts to comply with its legal obligations and prevented discovery of 
81

statistical data and other information showing the extent of [AmerisourceBergen’s] 

unlawful activities.” Dkt. 28 at 70 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 252 & 255). Paragraph 252 alleges 

that in a complaint that the Cherokee Nation filed against AmerisourceBergen and other 

major opioid distributors and pharmacies in February 2018, the Cherokee Nation 

alleged AmerisourceBergen made affirmative efforts to conceal its conduct 

and avoid detection, including by falsely assuring the public, through trade 

associations or otherwise, that AmerisourceBergen was undertaking efforts 

to comply with its legal obligations as well as by preventing discovery of 

statistical data and other information showing the extent of 

AmerisourceBergen’s unlawful activities and its impact on the Cherokee 

Nation.

Compl. ¶ 252. That may be so, but that summary of what the Cherokee Nation alleged is 

no substitute for the plaintiffs alleging facts supporting an inference that 

AmerisourceBergen engaged in specific acts designed to fraudulently conceal its actions 

from them, nor have they explained when the fraudulent acts took place so that the court 

could consider whether to apply a tolling doctrine. The complaint alleges that the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied the defendants’ motion 

to dismiss, but the plaintiffs do not reference any ruling on fraudulent concealment or 

tolling (which the decision does not appear to contain). See Cherokee Nation v. McKesson 

Corp., 529 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (E.D. Okla. 2021).

Paragraph 255 also references a complaint that the Attorney General of the State of 

Georgia filed against AmerisourceBergen and other major opioid distributors and 

manufacturers in January 2019. The plaintiffs describe the Georgia complaint as alleging 

that “AmerisourceBergen, among others, made fraudulent misrepresentations, 

suppressions, and concealments of material facts in order to fraudulently conceal the 
82

existence of causes of action against them.” Compl. ¶ 255. The plaintiffs have not identified 

any factual allegations to support this conclusory characterization. Once again, they have 

not identified specific acts that AmerisourceBergen took to fraudulently conceal the 

existence of causes of action, nor have they explained when the fraudulent acts took place 

so that the court could consider whether to apply a tolling doctrine based on those acts.

The plaintiffs fare better with their allegations about disclosures that appeared in 

AmerisourceBergen’s annual reports on Form 10-K starting with the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2017. There, AmerisourceBergen represented to stockholders that its antidiversion controls were sound, stating:

[W]e are deeply committed to diversion control efforts, have sophisticated 

systems in place to identify orders placed warranting further review to 

determine if they are suspicious (including through the use of data analytics), 

and engage in significant due diligence and ongoing monitoring of 

customers.

Id. ¶ 295. Similar disclosures appear in the Form 10-Ks for subsequent years. 

The plaintiffs have alleged particularized facts which support an inference that the 

disclosure in the Form 10-K for September 30, 2017, was false, which makes that 

disclosure an actual artifice that would be sufficient to invoke fraudulent concealment for 

the purpose of extending the actionable period to that date. But that has no effect on the 

actionable period for purposes of this litigation, because the plaintiffs’ diligent use of 

Section 220 already results in the actionable period extending back to October 20, 2016.

b. Equitable Tolling

“[T]he doctrine of equitable tolling stops the statute from running while a plaintiff 

has reasonably relied upon the competence and good faith of a fiduciary.” Tyson Foods, 
83

919 A.2d at 585. “The obvious purpose of the equitable tolling doctrine is to ensure that 

fiduciaries cannot use their own success at concealing their misconduct as a method of 

immunizing themselves from accountability for their wrongdoing.” Am. Int’l Gp., 965 A.2d 

at 813; see also Hillblom v. Wilm. Tr. Co., C.A. No. 2021-1034-MTZ (Del. Ch. Dec. 6, 

2022) (tolling statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duties and trust; finding 

plaintiff’s injury was inherently unknowable when the plaintiff had no reason to believe 

she should investigate professional trust’s conduct).

In Seaboard, Chancellor Allen engaged in a lengthy and scholarly discussion of the 

tolling principle under which a stockholder is entitled to rely on the good faith of directors 

such that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty would not arise until the stockholder had 

actual knowledge of the wrong or was placed on inquiry notice. Chancellor Allen explained 

that “[g]iven the fiduciary duties that the law imposes upon the relationship among those 

serving as corporate directors, stockholders are entitled to rely on the good faith of the 

directors when they act with respect to the corporation’s property or processes.” 625 A.2d 

at 275. He stressed that “[s]ince trust and good faith are the essence of this relationship, it 

would be corrosive and contradictory for the law to punish reasonable reliance on that good 

faith by applying the statute of limitations woodenly or automatically to alleged selfinterested violations of trust.” Id. He concluded that reasonable reliance upon the 

competence and good faith of others who have assumed legal responsibilities towards a 

plaintiff was sufficient to toll the running of an applicable statute of limitations. Id.

The Seaboard case involved a self-dealing contract between a corporation and its 

controlling stockholder, and in his discussion of the precedents and their application to the 
84

facts before him, Chancellor Allen frequently referred to the tolling principle applying in 

cases of self-dealing. Id. at 275–77. In discussing several early precedents, however, he 

noted that the rule extended to the type of fraud perpetrated by a fiduciary, or as he stated 

in describing one case, “fraud perpetuated by one who, because he has legal power over 

the property of others, has fiduciary obligations to those others.” Id. at 276. During the era 

that generated the precedents that Chancellor Allen reviewed, “fraud” was used when 

referring to fiduciary misconduct not in the sense of common law fraud, or even to 

equitable fraud as we now conceive of it, but in the general sense of constructive fraud as 

a synonym for breach of fiduciary duty.27

When this court next applied Seaboard, the court converted the specific application 

to a general rule. See Litman v. Prudential-Bache Props., Inc., 1994 WL 30529, at *3 (Del. 

Ch. Jan. 14, 1994), aff’d, 642 A.2d 837 (Del. 1994) (TABLE). Based on the repeated 

references to self-dealing in Seaboard, the Litman court reasoned that the fiduciary tolling 

principle—which the court described as equitable tolling—only applied to cases involving 

27 See Parfi Hldg. AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., 794 A.2d 1211, 1236–37 (Del. 

Ch. 2001) (“Our corporate case law has thrown [the so-called ‘constructive fraud’] concept 

around in a not particularly precise way, but always in a context in which the court is 

examining whether directors have complied with their fiduciary duties.”), rev’d on other 

grounds, 817 A.2d 149 (Del. 2002). See generally Dan B. Dobbs, Handbook on the Law of 

Remedies 679–85 (1973) (criticizing the use of the term “constructive fraud” and 

explaining its function as a tool for enforcing fiduciary relationships); 3 John Norton 

Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence 625–26, 788–92 (5th ed. 1941) (explaining 

concept of constructive fraud, including its application to situations involving fiduciary 

breach); 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence as Administered in 

England and America § 307, at 309 (13th ed. 1886) (explaining that courts used the concept 

of “constructive fraud” to describe breaches of fiduciary duty).
85

self-dealing in the sense of fiduciaries extracting benefits for themselves. Id. The decision 

did not cite any authority for this reformulation. The court simply stated, “I think the better 

rule, and the one Chancellor Allen intended, is that a limitations period may be tolled absent 

allegations of affirmative acts of concealment by the defendants, where the parties to the 

litigation stand in a fiduciary relationship to each other and where the plaintiff alleges selfdealing.” Id. Under this view, “[i]n situations that do not involve self-dealing, equitable 

tolling operates in much the same way as the doctrine of fraudulent concealment.” Id. 

Because the allegations in Litman did not involve the extraction of personal benefits, the 

case did not involve self-dealing, and the court did not toll the statute. Id. Subsequent 

decisions have used the Litman framing. See Weiss v. Swanson, 948 A.2d 433, 451 (Del. 

Ch. 2008); Dean Witter, 1998 WL 442456, at *6.

The limitation of equitable tolling to one subspecies of loyalty violation—selfdealing—does not make sense to me. Loyalty and its subsidiary element of good faith 

constitute the core fiduciary principle. If fiduciaries act disloyally or in bad faith, but 

without engaging in self-dealing, it seems to me that equitable tolling should apply.28

The application of equitable tolling in Weiss supports the broader formulation. 

There, the court considered a challenge to grants of spring-loaded and bullet-dodged 

28 As discussed in a previous footnote, the doctrine of equitable tolling with its 

concept of reliance on fiduciaries bears a strong resemblance to the doctrine of blameless 

ignorance and the role it affords to reliance on professionals. The latter is not artificially 

limited to self-dealing. See Hillblom v. Wilmington Trust Co., C.A. No. 2021-1034-MTZ, 

slip op. at 29-34 (applying tolling doctrine to multiple claims not involving classic selfdealing).
86

options that the defendant fiduciaries had made not only to themselves but also to 

executives. 948 A.2d at 451. There had never been any disclosure about this practice, and 

the court held that the doctrine of equitable tolling applied not only to the self-interested 

grants, but also to the grants to the executives. Id. The latter grants were inferably disloyal 

because the complaint supported an inference that the directors had knowingly violated 

limitations in the governing plan documents and under applicable law, but they did not 

constitute self-dealing in the sense mandated by Litman. Id.; accord Tyson Foods, 919 A.2d 

at 590–91 (same).

More to the point, while serving as a Vice Chancellor, Chief Justice Strine rejected 

an argument that equitable tolling “only applies to cases of pure self-dealing.” Am. Int’l. 

Gp., 965 A.2d at 812. The plaintiff in that case alleged that an officer had taken steps to 

fraudulently inflate a corporation’s balance sheet. Chief Justice Strine reasoned that “[t]o 

allow fiduciaries who engaged in illegal conduct to wield a limitations defense against 

stockholders who relied in good faith on those fiduciaries when their disclosures provided 

no fair inquiry notice of claims would be inequitable.” Id. Under the reasoning of that case, 

equitable tolling extends to breaches of the duty of loyalty that rest on illegality.

A Massey Claim involves a breach of the duty of loyalty that rests on illegality. 

Equitable tolling is therefore available for a Massey Claim, even without allegations of 

pure self-dealing. A Red-Flags Theory requires conscious wrongdoing that amounts to bad 

faith. Equitable tolling is available for that species of claim as well. 

For the Massey Claim, equitable tolling theoretically could enable the plaintiffs to 

extend the actionable period back to 2010, when they contend that AmerisourceBergen 
87

management and the directors first took steps to pursue a business plan that prioritized 

profits over legal compliance by embarking on the Independent Pharmacy Strategy. For 

the Red-Flags Claim, equitable tolling could enable the plaintiffs to extend the actionable 

period back to 2012, when the investigations and lawsuits began. The question then 

becomes whether the plaintiffs were placed on inquiry notice before the actionable period. 

The defendants point to facts that the plaintiffs have alleged in their complaint about 

AmerisourceBergen’s initial difficulties with the DEA and anti-diversion programs in 

2007, including the settlement with the DEA over AmerisourceBergen’s Orlando 

distribution center and the consent judgment between the DEA and AmerisourceBergen’s 

Bellco subsidiary. The plaintiffs have pled those facts to support an inference that the 

directors knew about the need for anti-diversion controls and the risks inherent in not 

having a strong anti-diversion program. The plaintiffs are not citing those facts as 

actionable conduct. To the contrary, the plaintiffs acknowledge that after these events, 

AmerisourceBergen developed what at the time constituted the industry-standard antidiversion program. 

Between 2010 and 2015, however, problems began to emerge at the Company. The 

quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 31, 2012, disclosed that 

the Company had received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the 

District of New Jersey and that the Company had been sued by the Attorney General of 

West Virginia. The Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, disclosed a 

series of legal matters, including a complaint filed by the Attorney General of West 

Virginia, the subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 
88

and additional subpoenas issued by the United States Attorneys for the Districts of Kansas 

and the Northern District of Ohio. During 2014, the Company’s public filings continued to 

contain disclosures about the investigations being conducted by the United States 

Attorneys’ Offices and the lawsuit by the Attorney General of West Virginia.

A reasonable stockholder seeing those disclosures would be concerned about what 

was happening at the Company. Evidencing that reality, a law firm that is both a fast and 

frequent flier of derivative actions sent a books-and-records demand to the Company in 

December 2014 to investigate potential wrongdoing. After obtaining an agreed-upon 

production of documents, the law firm sent a litigation demand in December 2015, which 

asked the directors to bring claims against themselves and the management team for 

breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with their failure to oversee the Company’s 

diversion control and order monitoring systems. Ex. 55. As support for an inference of 

wrongdoing, the demand cited:

• The DEA’s 2007 suspension of the Company’s license for the Orlando 

distribution center.

• The Company’s public disclosures about receiving subpoenas from various U.S. 

Attorneys’ Offices.

• A complaint filed by the Attorney General of West Virginia, as well as 

complaints filed by the Attorneys General of Boone County, West Virginia, and 

Fulton County, Georgia.

Id. at 3–4. The demand also cited the Company’s low rate of suspicious order reporting for 

2012, which was obtained from documents produced in the books-and-records

investigation. Id. at 4.
89

Even accepting that the law firm was engaged in a hypervigilant search for a lawsuit 

and wanted to get out ahead of other entrepreneurial firms, the demand supports an 

inference that stockholders were on inquiry notice about problems at AmerisourceBergen 

as early as December 2015. Under a discrete act accrual system, the existence of inquiry 

notice at that point would make any lawsuit untimely that was not filed within a reasonable 

time after December 2015. From that point on, the defendants would be able to continue 

their actions without any prospect for accountability through a derivative action for breach 

of fiduciary duty. 

Under the separate accrual system, inquiry notice does not have that effect. It 

prevents the plaintiff from relying on tolling doctrines to extend the actionable period, but 

it does not prevent a plaintiff from suing for the portion of the ongoing wrongful acts and 

the resulting damages that occurred during the actionable period. Nor does it prevent the 

actionable period from including additional time on the basis of when the plaintiffs began 

pursuing their claims by seeking books and records. Here, the plaintiffs can sue for wrongs 

dating back to October 20, 2016, and can recover damages that the Company suffered 

during that period.

C. The Issue Of Prejudice

The second dimension of the laches analysis is prejudice to the defendants. “Laches 

is fundamentally concerned with the prevention of inequity in permitting a claim to be 

enforced. Inequity for this purpose arises where there occurs some change in the condition 

or relation of the parties or the property involved in the pending lawsuit.” Wolfe & 

Pittenger, supra, § 15.07[c][4] at 15-18. The time period that a court determines is 
90

presumptively permissible may require modification if the defendant can show that a 

plaintiff failed to act as expeditiously as the circumstances dictated and suffered actual 

prejudice as a result. Id.

The defendants have not pointed to any prejudice that could render the plaintiffs’

suit untimely. They made a straightforward statute of limitations argument, which this 

decision has rejected. There are no indications that evidence has been lost. There is no 

reason to think that the defendants have suffered any other disadvantage in their ability to 

litigate the case.

If anything, now is the appropriate time to litigate the case. With the 2021 Settlement 

concluded, the bulk of the harm to the Company has been quantified, and the time has come 

to consider whether grounds exist to shift responsibility for the harm that the Company has 

suffered to the individuals who made decisions on its behalf.

D. Other Equitable Considerations

When conducting a laches analysis, a court may take into account “unusual 

conditions or extraordinary circumstances.”29 This decision has conducted an extensive 

29 Levey, 76 A.3d at 770; accord IAC/InterActiveCorp. v. O’Brien, 26 A.3d 174, 178 

(Del. 2011) (same); Wright v. Scotton, 121 A. 69, 73 (Del. 1923) (“[I]f unusual conditions 

or extraordinary circumstances make it inequitable to allow the prosecution of a suit after 

a briefer, or to forbid its maintenance after a longer period than that fixed by the statute”

then a court may “determine the extraordinary case in accordance with the equities which 

condition it.”). There is a case that sought to interpret laches as a one-way ratchet that could 

shorten the otherwise applicable limitations period but which could not lengthen it beyond 

what a recognized tolling doctrine would allow. See, e.g., In re Sirius XM S’holder Litig.,

2013 WL 5411268, at *4 (Del. Ch. Sept. 27, 2013) (“[L]laches may bar a plaintiff in equity

before the analogous statute of limitations has run, but a filing after the analogous statute

of limitations has run cannot be justified except in the rare and unusual circumstance that
91

analysis to determine an actionable period for the plaintiffs’ suit. There are no other 

equitable reasons to enlarge or shorten the period. 

E. The Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Timely.

In their final argument, the defendants contend that the plaintiffs’ claims are 

untimely because no actionable conduct took place within the limitations period. Based on 

the laches analysis that this decision has conducted, the plaintiffs’ claims are timely. 

The factual background describes a litany of events that took place after October 

20, 2016, which constitute red flags for purposes of the Red-Flags Theory. The factual 

background likewise explains that the defendants did not take action to address the Revised 

a recognized tolling doctrine excuses the late filing. In other words, a plaintiff in equity

cannot file beyond the statute of limitations unless a tolling doctrine exists that would

justify an equally late filing in a court of law.” (cleaned up)). Delaware Supreme Court 

decisions do not embrace this view, with the high court holding instead that “[a] statute of 

limitations period at law does not automatically bar an action in equity because actions in 

equity are time-barred only by the equitable doctrine of laches.” Whittington, 991 A.2d at 

9. In Levey and O’Brien, the high court reversed decisions by this court that applied laches 

in a manner coterminous with the statute of limitations and applicable tolling doctrines, 

holding instead that a court of equity could permit the claim to proceed even though a 

recognized tolling doctrine did not apply. See Levey, 76 A.3d at 769; O’Brien, 26 A.3d at 

176. In this setting, the high court has upheld equity’s traditional ability to address injustice 

on a case-by-case basis and ameliorate the potentially harsh effects of a generally sound 

rule of law. See In re Coca-Cola Enters., Inc., 2007 WL 3122370, at *4 (Del. Ch. Oct. 17,

2007) (“Courts of Equity came into being because universally applicable legal rules are

bound to work injustice in certain individual cases. [Accordingly,] it would be antithetical 

for a court of equity to blindly apply a statute of limitations to bar equitable claims.”), aff’d

sub nom. Int’l Bhd. Teamsters v. Coca-Cola Co., 954 A.2d 910 (Del. 2008); see also XRI

Inv. Hldgs. LLC v. Holifield, 283 A.3d 581, 630–640 (Del. Ch. Sept. 19, 2022) (discussing 

the history of the law-equity divide).
92

OMP or institute a system of direct board oversight until the 2021 Settlement, which is 

sufficient for the Massey Theory. 

This decision does not address the defendants’ contention that demand is futile 

because the plaintiffs’ theories do not pose a substantial threat of liability to at least half of 

the directors in office when suit was filed. This decision assumes for purposes of the 

timeliness analysis that the plaintiffs have viable claims and only considers whether the 

plaintiffs pursued them too late. Because the conduct that the plaintiffs challenged 

continued and intensified during the actionable period, the plaintiffs’ claims are timely. 

III. CONCLUSION

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims as untimely is denied.