Opinion ID: 2383999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Decision of the Court of Chancery

Text: In reaching that result, the Court of Chancery determined that Wal-Mart's claims had accrued between 1993 and 1995, and that accordingly, the action was commenced after the three-year limitations period had expired. The Court also concluded that the running of the limitations period was not tolled because Wal-Mart had been on inquiry notice of its claims more than three years before its lawsuit was commenced. In concluding that all of Wal-Mart's claims had accrued at the time Wal-Mart purchased the COLI policies  between 1993 and 1995 [12]  the Court identified as the common premise of all the claims (including the claim for unjust enrichment) Wal-Mart's contention that the defendants had failed to disclose the risks inherent in the COLI policies at the time those policies were purchased. [13] Because the claims had accrued by 1995, the Court held that Wal-Mart's September 3, 2002 lawsuit was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The Court of Chancery also determined as a matter of law that the statute of limitations had not been tolled because Wal-Mart's claims were not inherently unknowable. [14] The Court grounded that conclusion upon various news articles, all published between 1992 and 1995, that discussed certain risks related to COLI policies. The Court also considered two technical advisory memoranda (TAM) that the IRS had issued to companies other than Wal-Mart. Those TAMs expressed the IRS's legal position that COLI interest deductions should be disallowed because they were sham transactions. [15] Although these materials were extrinsic to Wal-Mart's complaint, the Court did not treat those articles and TAMs as having converted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment. Instead, the Court took judicial notice of the articles and the TAMs, and proceeded to decide the motion under Rule 12(b)(6).