Khan v. Deutsche Bank AG
Annotate this Case
In 2009, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, in 1999 and 2000, marketed and sold to them investments, known as the 1999 Digital Options Strategy and the 2000 COINS Strategy, which were promoted as producing profits and reducing tax liabilities. Plaintiffs were charged substantial fees, but the promised benefits did not occur. The parties agree that the five-year statute of limitations for actions not otherwise provided for is applicable. The circuit court dismissed; the appellate court reversed and remanded. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, applying the “discovery rule” that a limitation period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury and its wrongful cause. The limitation period began to run when the IRS issued deficiency notices to plaintiffs in 2008. The complaint adequately alleged breach of fiduciary duty; that there was no basis for dismissing the claim as legally insufficient.
Court Description:
This Champaign County civil litigation is before the supreme court on an appeal from the granting of motions to dismiss. No trial has occurred.
The plaintiffs’ 2009 complaint alleged that the defendants, in 1999 and 2000, marketed and sold to them investments, known as the 1999 Digital Options Strategy and the 2000 COINS Strategy, which were promoted as not only producing profits, but also as reducing tax liabilities. Plaintiffs were charged substantial fees, but the promised benefits did not occur. The parties agree that the five-year statute of limitations for actions not otherwise provided for is applicable. In the circuit court, the defendants obtained a dismissal, but the appellate court reversed and remanded.
In this decision, the supreme court held that the limitation period began to run when the Internal Revenue Service issued deficiency notices to the plaintiffs in 2008. The supreme court applied the “discovery rule” that a limitation period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury and its wrongful cause. The action complaining of the promotion of bogus tax shelters and the ultimate disallowance of losses was, thus, timely filed, and this holding also applies to the accounting firm which was made a defendant concerning the year 2000 strategy.
In addition to disapproving of the limitations dismissals, the supreme court further held that the complaint adequately alleged breach of fiduciary duty, that there was no basis for dismissing this claim as legally insufficient, and that resolution of the breach of fiduciary duty count must await upcoming proceedings in the circuit court. Defendants’ challenges to the sufficiency of the pleadings to allege negligent representation have been forfeited and are no longer before the supreme court. The appellate court judgment was affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.