Opinion ID: 2801225
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pre-1993 Plan-JDS Share Repurchases

Text: The district court dismissed the pre-1993 share repurchase claims on the basis of the ERISA statute of limitations. 29 U.S.C. § 1113. We need not parse the active/passive distinction for the “fraud or concealment” exception to the statute of limitations for two reasons: (1) the Plan Participants abandoned their claim for monetary damages, and (2) the district court determined that “[i]f the court’s finding that plaintiffs’ claims based on defendants’ conduct from 1982 to 1992 is reversed for any reason, the remainder of the court’s analysis in this Order 1 The Plan Participants’ failure to show damages or entitlement to equitable relief also bars recovery on their claim that the restrictions on the transferability of JDS stock in the JDS Articles were invalid as preempted by ERISA. This argument is unpersuasive for an independent reason. ERISA preempts “State laws.” 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Contracts between private parties, such as the JDS Articles, are not state laws. See Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. California, 159 F.3d 1178, 1183 n.2 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We see no merit in AGC’s argument that simply because a contract is legal and enforceable it has the effect of law of a state.”). 5 of plaintiffs’ post-1992 claims would apply equally to their time-barred claims.” The infirmities in the Plan Participants’ monetary and equitable claims for post-1992 JDS share repurchases apply with equal force to the pre-1993 claims. D. Amendments to the JDS Articles of Incorporation To the extent that the Plan Participants argue that passive concealment has tolled ERISA’s statute of limitations with respect to the 1978, 1980, and 1984 amendments to the JDS Articles of Incorporation, we reject that argument. As the district court noted, all the amendments to the Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Illinois Secretary of State. Thus, even assuming that passive concealment might toll ERISA’s statute of limitations, the record would not support a claim of passive concealment here. E. Excessive Sales of JDS Stock To the extent that the Plan Participants appeal the district court’s rejection of their allegations that Plan trustees sold more shares of JDS stock than necessary in 1982, 1987, and 1993, their argument fails because—as the district court held after trial—they have not proposed or sought any remedy with respect to this claim. The Plan Participants do not contest this holding on appeal; thus, they have waived any challenge to the district court’s ruling on this claim.