fails to plead that the defendants fraudulently concealed their wrongdoing.133 Moreover,
as noted, within the limitations period, there were abundant facts in the public record
about the Chartwell transaction, the effect that had on Trenwick America’s debt and
Trenwick’s operating losses, putting potential plaintiffs on inquiry notice of their
claims.134 Therefore, the portions of the complaint challenging the Chartwell transaction
and the financing arrangements entered into in the immediate wake of that transaction are
dismissed for the alternative reason that they are time-barred.
G. The Ad Hominem Advisor Allegations
In the complaint, the Litigation Trust named certain high-profile advisors to
Trenwick as defendants. Most of the allegations of the complaint involving these
advisors can be fairly said to be irrelevant and impertinent material that would justify that
rarest of judicial orders, an order striking portions of a pleading.135 Pages 13 to 19 of the
complaint are taken up almost entirely by references to other lawsuits and proceedings in
which these advisors have been accused of wrongful or negligent behavior. The magical
word “Enron” is bandied about by the Litigation Trust as a substitute for relevant factual
pleading.136 Given the freedom with which the Litigation Trust and its counsel accuse
Fraudulent concealment requires an affirmative act of concealment or some misrepresentation
by a defendant that prevents a plaintiff from gaining knowledge of the facts.
WL 1594085, at *19 (citing
., 1998 Del. Ch. LEXIS 133, at *21
(Del. Ch. July 17, 1998),
, 725 A.2d 441 (Del. 1999));
, Hefter Decl. Ex. A, Ex. 13.1,
at 11-12, 42 (Amended Excerpts from Trenwick 10-K, Amd. No 1, filed Aug. 22, 2000); Hefter
Decl. Ex. C, at 13-14 (Trenwick 10-K filed Mar. 30, 2000).
Del. Ch. Ct. R. 12(f). Comp. ¶¶ 1, 47.