100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 34 - 36 out of 56 pages.
2257 (2005). Specifically,Plaintiffs argue that the City concealed its role in the Riot through the convening ofa Grand Jury that blamed the Riot on the victims, the failure to investigate the riotor prosecute persons who committed murder or arson, and the disappearance ofofficial files from the Oklahoma National Guard, the County Sheriff, and the TulsaPolice Department. Plaintiffs further support this argument with the language from[title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes], § 8000.1.4 referring to a "conspiracy of silence"that "served the dominant interests of the state."Id. at *24.214 Bodner v. Banque Paribas, 114 F. Supp. 2d 117, 121 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).[Vol. 74:68
Statutes of Limitations: A Policy Analysisthe Vichy and Nazi regimes" to loot the plaintiffs' assets, which promoteddiscrimination against Jewish citizens and disabled them from being able tofinance their escape from Nazi persecution and avoid being sent to concen-tration camps where they were killed.215 The plaintiffs alleged that, after thewar, the "defendants unjustly refused to return the looted assets, enrichedthemselves with the derivative profits, and concealed information, value, andderivative profits of the looted assets from the plaintiffs.'216 The plaintiffsalso accused the defendants of "misrepresenting to plaintiffs and the generalpublic [the defendants'] role during the Vichy government and their contin-ued retention of assets; and failing to provide an accounting and restitution toplaintiffs.'217Various commissions were formed to provide relief to victims of the Hol-ocaust-related atrocities, to supervise banking institutions' compliance, andto conciliate amongst the parties. The primary commission was an indepen-dent one organized by the French government, "comprised of historians, dip-lomats, lawyers, and magistrates to 'study the conditions in which goods mayhave been illicitly acquired... and to publish proposals' regarding redress ofHolocaust-era atrocities in France.'218 This commission generated a reportthat provided substantial relevant evidence to the plaintiffs' case.219 Conse-quently, the plaintiffs argued that "defendants should be equitably estoppedfrom raising a statute of limitations defense because plaintiffs have been keptin ignorance of vital information necessary to pursue their claims without anyfault or lack of due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs.' 220 The plaintiffscontended that the defendants engaged in a "policy of systematic and histori-cal denial and misrepresentation" and that such deception misled and de-prived the plaintiffs from knowing or successfully proving their claims.221The court unequivocally accepted the plaintiffs' equitable argument, conclud-ing that the defendants' deception should not permit them to hide behind thestatute of limitations:Should the alleged facts be supported by evidence in discovery,there is certainly a strong undercurrent to the issues at bar sug-gesting the [sic] a deceptive and unscrupulous deprivation of bothassets and of information substantiating plaintiffs' and their ances-tors'