The appellant City purchased asset-backed commercial paper notes that subsequently collapsed in value.
The City sued the respondents for negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment more than two years after purchasing the notes but less than two years after the notes matured and defaulted.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's summary judgment dismissing the claims as statute-barred.
The Court held that for negligent misrepresentation inducing a transaction, damage occurs when the plaintiff enters into the transaction and receives something less valuable than represented, not when the full extent of the loss is monetized.
The limitation period was not suspended by a standstill agreement or by the involvement of an investors committee.