Court Opinion

ID: 9563331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:38:46.68821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:48.102089
License: Public Domain

Justice MOORE
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I would hold the amendment to S.C.Code Ann. § 35-1-510 (Supp.2004) gives rise to a private cause of action under S.C.Code Ann. *354§ 35-1-1210 (Supp.2004) and does not limit private causes of action to instances where a surety bond has been posted.
Additionally, I would find that the common law causes of action alleged were not abrogated by S.C.Code Ann. § 33-8-420 (1990). Simply because the General Assembly enacted a statute addressing the fiduciary duty owed to shareholders by corporate officers or directors does not mean that it intended to abrogate all common law causes of action involving corporate officers or directors and shareholders. See State v. Prince, 316 S.C. 57, 66, 447 S.E.2d 177, 182 (1993) (“Common law offenses are not abrogated simply because there is a statutory offense proscribing similar conduct. Rather, it is presumed that no change in common law is intended unless the Legislature explicitly indicates such an intention by language in the statute.”) (citations omitted). See also Nuckolls v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 192 S.C. 156, 161, 5 S.E.2d 862, 864 (1939) (“[I]t is not presumed that the Legislature intended to abrogate or modify a rule of the common-law by the enactment of a statute upon the same subject; that it is rather to be presumed that no change in the common-law was intended unless the language employed clearly indicates such an intention.... ”). There is nothing in the Reporter’s Comments cited by the majority or the statute itself that indicates the General Assembly intended to abrogate all common law causes of action involving corporate directors and officers and shareholders.
Furthermore, even if § 33-8-420 applies, I would find the statute of limitations period set forth in subsection (e) does not bar appellants’ claims. Section 33-80-420(e) provides:
An action against an officer for failure to perform the duties imposed by this section must be commenced within three years after the cause of action has accrued, or within two years after the time when the cause of action is discovered, or should reasonably have been discovered, whichever sooner occurs. This limitations period does not apply to breaches of duty which have been concealed fraudulently.
(Emphasis added). The majority states that the Reporter’s Comments to S.C.Code Ann. § 33-8-300 (1990) support its conclusion that the last sentence in § 33-8-420(e) applies only to the three-year statute of limitations period. I disagree. *355This subsection sets forth only one period, whichever occurs sooner of three years from the actual accrual or two years from discovery, and “this limitations period” does not apply when fraudulent concealment is alleged. The Reporter’s Comments specifically state: “The advantage of the short limitations period set forth in subsection (e) is not available to fiduciaries who fraudulently conceal their wrongdoing.” (Emphasis added). In my opinion, the last sentence in this subsection does not apply only to the three-year period and I would find this entire subsection inapplicable. I would hold that appellants had three years from discovery, pursuant to the general statute of limitations set forth in S.C.Code Ann. § 15-3-530 (2005), in which to bring their claims.
Accordingly, I would reverse the order dismissing appellants’ complaint.
TOAL, C.J., concurs.