Opinion ID: 196516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: bchf's cross-appeal

Text: 65 Notwithstanding its agreement with most of the district court's findings and conclusions, BCHF raises a number of errors it alleges the court committed. We note that BCHF raises four issues in its cross-appeal. Based on the fact that we have already addressed the appropriate interest rate to be used in calculating its damages for the misappropriated checks, see supra part VI.B, as well as the fact that in its brief it concedes that this court need not address the circumstances surrounding Dr. Freed's testimony if we find in its favor with respect to the Banks plan, we address its two remaining claims below.
66 BCHF first challenges the manner in which the district court applied the Massachusetts statute of limitations to limit its damages arising out of Nadal-Ginard's breaches. While BCHF does not challenge the court's finding that Massachusetts law imposes a three year limitation on breach of fiduciary duty claims, see Mass.Gen.L. ch. 260, Sec. 2A, BCHF alleges that the district court should have found the statute to have been tolled because Nadal-Ginard concealed his misdeeds. As such, BCHF asks this court to reverse the district court's judgment insofar as it precludes the recovery of damages arising from its salary and Escrow Account claims prior to November 12, 1990. We decline. 67 The general rule in Massachusetts is that a cause of action in tort, in this case a claim based on the violation of a fiduciary duty, must be commenced within three years of the time the breach occurs. See id. As with any rule, however, there exists at least one exception, which, in this case, is defined by statute: 68 If a person liable to a personal action fraudulently conceals the cause of such action from the knowledge of the person entitled to bring it, the period prior to the discovery of his cause of action by the person so entitled shall be excluded in determining the time limited for the commencement of the action. 69 Mass.Gen.L. ch. 260, Sec. 12. 70 In general, this statute requires a plaintiff to show an affirmative act of fraudulent concealment on the part of the defendant. Maggio v. Gerard Freezer & Ice Co., 824 F.2d 123, 130 (1st Cir.1987). Once again, however, a relevant exception exists. In cases where a fiduciary relationship exists between plaintiff and defendant ... [the] mere failure to reveal information may be sufficient to constitute fraudulent conduct.... Id. (emphasis added); see also Puritan Medical Center, Inc. v. Cashman, 413 Mass. 167, 596 N.E.2d 1004, 1010 (1992). 71 The district court applied both the statutory language and the relevant case law to the facts at hand. That is, while it recognized that Massachusetts law no longer required a plaintiff to show active concealment on the part of the defendant in order to toll the statute of limitations, it found that the law did not require a tolling per se when the cause of action concerned the breach of a fiduciary duty of disclosure. Concluding that the facts below differed from those in Puritan in that the information in question was either of general knowledge or easily accessible to the other Board members, it declined to apply the statute's tolling provisions. 72 We find no error in the district court's interpretation of the applicable Massachusetts tolling provisions. Indeed, as the court pointed out below, the cases hold only that the breach of a duty to disclose may be sufficient to invoke the tolling provisions. See Puritan Medical Center, Inc. v. Cashman, 596 N.E.2d at 1010; Maggio v. Gerard Freezer & Ice Co., 824 F.2d at 130. There is no suggestion that such a breach requires the tolling provisions to be applied in all cases. Indeed, such a conclusion would be counterintuitive. 14 73 An examination of the record reveals nothing to suggest that the district court erred in refusing to find the statute tolled. As such, we turn to address the final issue BCHF raises in its cross-appeal.
74 BCHF's second allegation of error arises out of the district court's findings that Nadal-Ginard failed to disclose his HHMI employment to the Board. Specifically, BCHF argues that the district court erred by not finding that Nadal-Ginard breached his fiduciary duties by failing to disclose to the Board the fact that he was receiving a fringe benefits package from HHMI. Once again, we find no error on the part of the district court. 75 The district court, applying the principles underlying fiduciary obligations that we have already detailed, see supra part III.A, found that BCHF failed to prove what the HHMI benefits were and whether they were comparable to those provided by BCHF. Thus, the court found nothing to suggest the HHMI benefit information would have affected the outcome of the Board's determination of Nadal-Ginard's BCHF fringe benefits package. Therefore, it concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that Nadal-Ginard failed to act in good faith with respect to the fringe benefits, and thus no basis for finding he breached his fiduciary duties in this regard. 76 Having found nothing in the record to suggest that the district court's factual finding with respect to the sufficiency of the fringe benefit evidence was clearly erroneous, we find no need to disrupt the district court's finding.