Abdallah v. Bain Capital LLC, 880 F. Supp. 2d 190

In 2004, Bain Capital-led investor pool purchased ~85% of Samsonite for $8 million, with Bain as the main active participant and Botolli named CEO.
After acquisition, Samsonite’s Hénin-Beaumont factory was sold to HB Group in 2005; the factory operated at a loss and filed for bankruptcy about a year later, with liquidation ordered in 2007.
Plaintiff Abdallah, a factory employee, alleges Bain arranged the sale to HB Group to avoid costs of a collective redundancy plan under French law.
Abdallah asserts that a 50+ worker employer terminating at least 10 employees triggers a mandatory collective redundancy plan, which she claims would have cost Samsonite roughly $75 million if shuttered.
French workers sued Samsonite, HB Group, Bain, and others; French courts voided the transfer as fraudulent and later workers prevailed on related termination claims.
Abdallah filed a class action in U.S. District Court (D. Mass.) on November 4, 2011, asserting fraud, tortious interference, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 2(a), and unjust enrichment/restitution/constructive trust; Bain moved to dismiss on December 5, 2011.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Abdallah's claims time-barred?	Abdallah argues tolling doctrines may save claims.	Bain contends statutes have expired.	Claims time-barred; dismissal affirmed.
Does the discovery rule toll the limitations period?	Discovery rule tolls until plaintiff knew or should have known of injury.	Injuries evident at time of occurrence; duty to investigate; no tolling.	Discovery rule not applicable.
Does Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 12 fraudulent concealment toll the period?	Recent evidence suggests concealment; § 12 may apply.	No facts of active concealment; complaint lacks specifics; § 12 inapplicable.	Fraudulent concealment not established as applicable.
Is equitable tolling appropriate?	Equitable tolling could apply due to concealment and reasonable diligence.	No demonstration that information could not have been found with timely inquiry.	Equitable tolling not warranted; no basis shown.

Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2011) (nonconclusory facts must be treated as true for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings; facial sufficiency)
Epstein v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 460 F.3d 183 (1st Cir.2006) (fraud pleading standards; heightened requirement)
Bernier v. Upjohn Co., 144 F.3d 178 (1st Cir.1998) (fraud pleading and related standards)
Puritan Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cashman, 413 Mass. 167 (1992) (statutes of limitations and tolling principles in Massachusetts)
Lareau v. Page, 39 F.3d 384 (1st Cir.1994) (accrual timing for tort claims)
Fidler v. Eastman Kodak Co., 714 F.2d 192 (1st Cir.1983) (tolling and accrual concepts in early circuit guidance)
Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., 408 Mass. 204 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court 1990) (Massachusetts accrual principles for tort claims)
Cambridge Literary Props., Ltd. v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik, 448 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D. Mass.2006) (application of statute-of-limitations principles in dismissals)
LeGoff v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 23 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D. Mass.1998) (tolling and accrual under Massachusetts law)
Tagliente v. Himmer, 949 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1991) (tolling considerations and discovery)
Okoli v. Okoli, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 381 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (Mass. limitations and appellate treatment)