Tolling The Doctrine of Fradulent Concealment

We are going to toll the doctrine of fradulent concealment and sprinkle it with a hint of conflict of interest...

Looks like MWH are in big trouble over in Los Osos, CA. and could well be headed for the same reception in Cape Coral, FLA. very soon indeed.

Fraudulent Concealment defined:

"Deliberate hiding, non-disclosure, or suppression of a material fact or circumstance (which one is legally or morally bound to reveal) with intent to deceive or defraud in a contractual arrangement. See also suppression of evidence."

From Sewer Watch... and Calhoun's Cannons and from Los Oso's Lisa Schicker.

In June 28, 2004 Response to CCC, MWH and the 2004 LOCSD deliberately hid over $5 million (at least!) in amenity and O&M costs in their cost estimates -- which they were legally AND morally bound to reveal -- with the intent to deceive the California Coastal Commission into approving the Tri-W project, and it worked!

In Exhibit 3-C, where low-balled numbers for the mid-town Tri-W sewer plant benefited that "project," the dog park is estimated at "$60,000," however, just a few months later, in their "value engineering" report, MWH, and the Los Osos CSD, estimated that exact same dog park at "$690,000," more than a factor (factor!) of 11 from their previous estimate.

Better yet, how about this one which should be filed under Conflict of Interest by a public official...

"Considering the fact that Bruce Gibson was elected with the help of Montgomery, Watson, Harza's money, via his Parks Commissioner, and now the engineering firm stands to make tens of millions of dollars off of his decisions, via his Parks Commissioner's former employee, Paavo Ogren...

Gibson, at the very least, needs to immediately recuse himself from ALL SLO County discussions involving the Los Osos wastewater project, or, more appropriately, immediately resign."

The Nattering One muses... Does any of this sound vaguely familiar? Something that the manager at risk and city officials should be readily aware of and if they aren't... oh well...

here we go in tolling the doctrine...

"it would be manifest injustice for this Court to conclude, as a matter of law, that ‘reasonable diligence’ includes an obligation to sift through a proxy statement, on the one hand...

and a year’s worth of press clippings and other filings, on the other, in order to establish a pattern concealed by those whose duty is to guard the interests of the investor.”

Where a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, “it is unnecessary to prove diligence in discovering the fraud.”

Where there is a fiduciary relationship and a corresponding fiduciary duty, a fiduciary can be liable for fraudulent misrepresentation by silence...

even in the absence of fraudulent statements or intentional concealment.