Sutherland v. Sutherland, Del. Ch., No. 2399-VCL (April 22, 2009), read opinion here. This is a two-page letter decision that is part of a long line of cases in this ongoing internecine battle among shareholders in a family business. The seven (7) prior Chancery Court decisions in this case have been summarized on this blog here.

This ruling, in the context of a motion for clarification of a prior decision, addresses a limited issue: Whether a demand for books and records under DGCL Section 220 tolls the statute of limitations for claims brought after the documents are obtained. Answer: "It depends". See, e.g., Orloff v. Shulman, 2005 WL 3272355 at *10 (Del. Ch. Nov. 23, 2005). The specific basis for the motion was whether the prior ruling was limited to the context of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, as opposed to ruling on the statute of limitations "on the merits". Bottom line: The issue will be addressed at trial.