ÿWPC€ …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµbùw@ 4A U 0ˆd 0Dì 0`0  U:˜ 0JÒ 0T 0^p 0hÎ 0r6 0|¨ 0†$ 0ª 1u:U,¯ 0dÛU,?U>kU*©B)ÓDCü D3? AMr B¿ 0@ܦ7U6Ýwv~ŠvÓ AOÛÆ* 0Dð D/4 Bc˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò- ù- ÀDÁDÂDÃÄÅDÆÇDÈÓ€ÒDÒ 3|xÒ(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd,,,,'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌSeptemberÏ3,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€pleadings€do€not€put€at€issue€whether€the€complaint€states€aÏcause€of€action€upon€which€the€plaintiffs€are€entitled€to€relief.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ Ø ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€'Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSeptember€3,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€+.);+'h|­¿` à. `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÔ€'&ÔELI€MIKE,€AN€INDIVIDUAL;à àà àà à(ÌJAMES€A.€SCHRAMPFER,€AN€à àà à(ÌINDIVIDUAL;€AND€JANE€N.€à àà àà à(ÌFORBES,€AS€TRUSTEE€IN€à àà àà à(ÌBANKRUPTCY€FOR€THE€ESTATE€OFà à(ÌDAVID€L.€OSBORN,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€DavidsonÏChanceryÌÒ € ÒÒ h Òà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€C.€AllenÏHigh,€Chancellor€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Appeal€No.Ï01S01„9508„CH„00137ÌPO€GROUP,€INC.,€A€TENNESSEEà àà à(ÌCORPORATION;€JAMES€W.€(BILL)à àà à(ÌANDERSON€III,€AN€INDIVIDUAL;à àà à(ÌAND€THE€ESTATE€OF€HAROLD€L.à àà à(ÌJENKINS,à àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendants„Appellees.à àà à(ÌÔ€'XÔÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs„Appellantsóó:à àà àòòà àà àForÏDefendants„Appelleesóó:ÌÌGary€M.€Brownà àà àà àà àà àWilliamÏL.€HarbisonÌMatthew€J.€Sweeney,€IIIà àà àà àà àL.€WebbÏCampbell,€IIÌJohn€C.€Tishlerà àà àà àà àà àAndrew€J.€PulliamÌTuke,€Yopp€&€Sweeneyà àà àà àà àSherrard€&€Roe,€P.L.C.Ì€€€Nashvilleà àà àà àà àà à€€€à à€€NashvilleÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDenty€CheathamÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCheatham€&€PalermoÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÌÌóóó óJUDGMENTS€OF€TRIAL€COURTÌAND€COURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED;ÌCASE€REMANDED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.Ì›ÌÑ À ÑÑ7€œèXXdæXXdì7ÑÑ€ÑÓÓÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÖ€/ÖÔ€'ŠÔà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals,€affirming€an€award€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendants.€ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€plaintiffs'€suit€charging€the€breach€by€aÏmajority€shareholder€of€a€fiduciary€duty€owed€to€minority€shareholders€is€barredÏby€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations.€€This€Court€concludes€that€theÏapplicable€period€of€limitations€is€three€years€and€€remands€the€case€to€theÏtrial€court€to€determine€whether€plaintiffs'€action€was€time„barred.ÌÌà@ àòòò òTHE€CASEóóó óÌÌà àAll€the€individual€and€corporate€parties€in€this€case€were€involvedÏin€the€operation€of€Po€Folks€restaurants.€€The€plaintiffs€are€Eli€Mike,€James€A.ÏSchrampfer,€and€Jane€N.€Forbes,€trustee€in€bankruptcy€€for€David€Osborn.€ÏMike,€Schrampfer,€and€Osborn€were€minority€shareholders€in€one€or€more€ofÏthe€following€corporations:€€Po€Louisville,€Inc.,€which€operated€€restaurants€inÏLouisville,€Kentucky;€Po€Memphis,€Inc.,€which€operated€restaurants€inÏMemphis;€and€Po€Jackson,€Inc.,€which€operated€a€restaurant€in€Jackson,ÏTennessee.€€The€majority€shareholder€in€each€of€these€three€corporations€wasÏthe€defendant€Po€Group,€Inc.€€The€defendants€James€W.€(Bill)€Anderson€andÏHarold€L.€Jenkins€(now€deceased)€owned€equally€all€the€shares€of€stock€inÏPo€Group,€Inc.€€Anderson€and€Jenkins€also€owned€shares€of€stock€in€PoÏCombination,€Inc.,€which€owned€all€the€stock€in€four€other€corporations€whichÏoperated€Po€Folks€restaurants€in€other€locations.€€Anderson€and€Jenkins€wereÏofficers€and€directors€in€Po€Louisville,€Inc.;€Po€Memphis,€Inc.;€Po€Jackson,€Inc.;ÏPo€Group,€Inc.;€and€Po€Combination,€Inc.ÌÌà àIn€1984,€Po€Combination,€Inc.€borrowed€$2.3€million€fromÏNashville€City€Bank.€€Anderson€and€Jenkins€personally€guaranteed€a€portionÏof€the€loan.€€In€early€1985,€the€bank€declared€the€loan€in€default.€€Pursuant€toÍa€new€financing€arrangement,€the€bank€agreed€to€forebear€collection€of€theÏ$2.3€million€loan€and€to€extend€an€additional€$900,000€line€of€credit€to€be€usedÏby€Po€Combination,€Inc.,€Po€Louisville,€Inc.,€Po€Memphis,€Inc.,€and€PoÏJackson,€Inc.€as€operating€capital.€€œ€Po›€Group,€Inc.€was€formed€in€order€toÏfacilitate€the€new€financing€arrangement.€€All€of€the€shares€in€Po€Combination,ÏInc.€and€œall€the›€shares€in€Po€Louisville,€Inc.,€Po€Memphis,€Inc.,€and€PoÏJackson,€Inc.€owned€by€Anderson€and€Jenkins€were€transferred€to€Po€Group,ÏInc.€€Unlimited€guaranty€agreements€were€executed€by€all€the€subsidiaries€ofÏPo€Combination,€Inc.,€and€Po€Louisville,€Inc.,€Po€Memphis,€Inc.,€and€PoÏJackson,€Inc.€pledged€all€of€their€assets€and€also€executed€unlimited€guarantyÏagreements€to€secure€the€$900,000€line€of€credit.€€Anderson€and€Jenkins€alsoÏexecuted€guaranty€agreements€for€the€$2.3€million€and€the€$900,000€loans.€€ÌÌà àIn€December€1985,€Po€Group,€Inc.€finalized€an€agreement€to€sellÏthe€assets€of€all€its€subsidiary€corporations,€including€Po€Louisville,€Inc.,€PoÏMemphis,€Inc.,€and€Po€Jackson,€Inc.,€to€œDineLite›€Corporation.€€TheÏconsideration€for€the€sale€was€the€release€of€all€guaranty€agreements€made€toÏNashville€City€Bank,€including€those€executed€by€Anderson€and€Jenkins,€andÏthe€receipt€of€stock€in€œDineLite.›€€The€shareholder€resolutions€required€for€theÏapproval€of€the€sale€were€adopted€by€the€vote€of€Po€Group,€Inc.,€the€majorityÍshareholder.€€The€œproposal€was€approved,€and€the€transaction›€closed€onÏJune30,€1986.€€ÌÌà àIn€September€1986,€the€plaintiffs€filed€suit,€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€48„1„909€(repealed€by€Acts€1986,€ch.€887,€ðð€17.05€and€ActsÏ1987,€ch.€242,€ðð€18.05)€to€enforce€their€œdissenters'›€rights€as€minorityÏshareholders€and€obtain€payment€for€the€fair€market€value€of€their€stock.€€InÏthat€suit,€the€court€determined€the€fair€market€value€of€the€shares€held€by€eachÏto€be€as€follows:€€Mike€œ$325,865.60,›€Schrampfer€$98,341.76,€and€OsbornÏ$260,685.48.€€No€payment€was€made€to€the€plaintiffs€because€theÏcorporations€had€no€assets€with€which€to€make€the€payments.€€There€wereÏno€insolvency€proceedings,€and€there€was€no€suit€by€or€on€behalf€of€theÏcorporations€to€secure€payments€to€the€plaintiffs.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€suit,€the€plaintiffs€allege€that€Po€Group,€Inc.€asÏmajority€shareholder,€breached€a€fiduciary€duty€owed€to€the€plaintiffs€asÏminority€shareholders.€€They€contend€that€the€sale€of€the€assets€owned€by€PoÏLouisville,€Inc.,€Po€Memphis,€Inc.,€and€Po€Jackson,€Inc.,€approved€by€the€voteÏof€Po€Group,€Inc.€as€the€majority€shareholder€in€each€of€those€corporations,Ïand€the€disposition€of€the€consideration€received,€rendered€the€corporationsÍunable€to€pay€the€plaintiffs€the€value€of€their€stock€as€determined€by€the€courtÏin€œthe€1986›€proceeding.€€They€contend€that€the€only€consideration€of€valueÏreceived€in€exchange€for€the€corporations'€assets€was€the€release€ofÏAnderson's€and€Jenkins'€guaranty€agreements.€€They€allege,€in€conclusion,Ïthat€by€their€action,€Po€Group,€Inc.,€as€majority€shareholder,€breached€aÏfiduciary€duty€owed€to€the€plaintiffs€as€minority€shareholders.€€The€plaintiffsÏalso€contend€that€they€should€be€allowed€to€pierce€the€corporate€veil€of€PoÏGroup,€Inc.€and€collect€any€judgments€rendered€in€their€favor€from€AndersonÏand€Jenkins€personally.€ÌÌà àAfter€the€completion€of€discovery,€the€defendants€Po€Group,€Inc.,ÏAnderson,€and€Jenkins€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment,€on€severalÏgrounds:€€they€claimed€that€the€suit€was€barred€by€the€one€year€statute€ofÏœlimitations›€governing€breach€of€fiduciary€duties€by€directors€and€officers,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601;€that,€in€the€alternative,€the€suit€was€barred€by€theÏthree€year€statute€of€œlimitations›€governing€claims€for€property€damage,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€œ28„3„105;›€and€that€there€was€no€material€evidence€justifying€theÏpiercing€of€Po€Group,€Inc.'s€corporate€veil.€€The€trial€court€found€that€œtheÏplaintiffs'›€claims€were€barred€by€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€set€forth€inÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601€and€granted€the€defendants'€motions€forÍsummary€judgment€on€this€basis.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed.€€That€court€held€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€on€all€of€the€claims€expired€on€January1,€1989,€one€year€after€theÏeffective€date€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€rejectedÏthe€plaintiffs'€contention€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601€does€not€apply,Ïwith€the€conclusion:€€"Regardless€of€how€plaintiffs€choose€to€couch€their€claim,Ïthey€are€alleging€breach€of€fiduciary€duties€by€officers€and€directors,€and€theirÏsuit€is€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations."ÌÌà@ àòòò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWóóó óÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€In€determining€whether€or€not€a€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact€exists€for€purposes€of€summaryÏjudgment,€courts€in€this€state€have€indicated€that€theÏquestion€should€be€considered€in€the€same€mannerÏas€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€ofÏthe€plaintiff's€proof,€i.e.,€the€trial€court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€ofÏthe€non„moving€party,€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence.€€Then,€if€there€is€a€disputeÏas€to€any€material€fact€or€any€doubt€as€to€theÏconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€that€fact,€the€motionÏmust€be€denied.€€The€court€is€not€to€"weigh"€theÏevidence€when€evaluating€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€The€court€is€simply€to€overrule€the€motionÍwhere€a€genuine€dispute€exists€as€to€any€materialÏfact.€€The€phrase€"genuine€issue"€contained€in€RuleÏ56.03€refers€to€genuine€factual€issues€and€does€notÏinclude€issues€involving€legal€conclusions€to€beÏdrawn€from€the€facts.€€The€critical€focus€is€limited€toÏfacts€deemed€"material,"€which€is€to€say€those€factsÏthat€must€be€decided€in€order€to€resolve€theÏsubstantive€claim€or€defense€at€which€the€motion€isÏdirected.ÌÌÓÓÌòòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210„11€(Tenn.€1993)€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òANALYSISóóó óÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌÌà àSince€summary€judgment€was€granted€on€the€ground€that€theÏplaintiffs'€causes€of€action€were€barred€by€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations,Ïthe€Court€must€determine€which€statute€of€limitations€applies€to€the€plaintiffs'Ïsuit,€which€depends€upon€the€nature€of€the€cause€of€action€alleged.€€TheÏgravamen€of€a€complaint€and€the€injury€alleged€determine€which€statute€ofÏlimitations€applies.€€òòVance€v.€Schulderóó,€547€S.W.2d€927,€931€(Tenn.€1977).€ÏTo€ascertain€the€gravamen€of€the€action,€the€Court€must€look€to€the€basis€forÏwhich€damages€are€sought.€€òòBland€v.€Smithóó,€197€Tenn.€683,€277€S.W.2d€377,Í379€(1955).€€€€ÌÌà àThe€complaint€alleges€that€the€majority€shareholder,€Po€Group,ÏInc.,€breached€a€fiduciary€duty€owed€to€them€as€minority€shareholders.× ƒ1 ××  ×€ÏTennessee€courts€have€stated€that€majority€shareholders€owe€a€fiduciary€dutyÏto€minority€shareholders.€€òòSeeóó€òòNelms€v.€Weaveróó,€681€S.W.2d€547,€549€(Tenn.Ï1984);€òòDale€v.€Thomas€H.€Temple€Co.óó,€186€Tenn.€69,€208€S.W.2d€344,€352Ï(1948);€òòMcCampbell€v.€Fountain€Head€œR.R.›€Co.óó,€111€Tenn.€55,€77€S.W.€1070,Ï1073€(1903);€òòJohns€v.€Caldwellóó,€601€S.W.2d€37,€41€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).€ÏHowever,€those€cases€are€significantly€different€from€the€present€case€in€theÏsubstance€of€the€allegations.€€In€the€present€case,€the€plaintiffs€allege€that€theÏproceeds€from€the€sale€of€corporate€assets€were€unfairly€distributed€by€theÏdefendant€Po€Group,€Inc.€to€the€defendants€Anderson€and€Jenkins.€€TheÏcomplaint€does€not€otherwise€define€the€duty€or€the€wrong.€€The€allegations€doÏnot€indicate€clearly€the€"gravamen€of€the€action."€€The€legal€wrong€of€which€theÏplaintiffs€complain€is€uncertain.€€The€complaint€does€not€charge€fraud;Ïhowever,€there€is€found€in€the€complaint€the€statement€that€the€breach€ofÏfiduciary€duty€by€the€òòdefendantsóó€included€"the€diversion€and/orÍmisappropriation"€of€assets.€€Even€then,€the€legal€duty€that€was€violated€isÏnot€entirely€clear.ÌÌà àœThe›€plaintiffs€seek€no€judgment€of€liability€for€wrongdoing€againstÏAnderson€and€Jenkins.€€The€complaint€against€Anderson€and€Jenkins€is€thatÏtheir€relationship€with€the€majority€shareholder,€Po€Group,€Inc.,€was€such€thatÏthe€plaintiffs€should€be€allowed€to€pierce€the€corporate€veil€and€collect€from€theÏindividual€defendants€the€value€of€their€shares€of€stock.€€ÌœÌ›Ìà@ àò òIIó ó€€ÌÌà àThere€appears€to€be€no€Tennessee€statute€or€decision€directlyÏaddressing€the€period€of€limitations€for€the€breach€of€a€fiduciary€duty€by€aÏmajority€shareholder.€€The€statute€which€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€found€applicable,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601,€is€part€of€theÏTennessee€Business€Corporation€Act€which€was€enacted€in€1986.€€The€Act,Ïby€its€terms,€became€effective€on€January€1,€1988.€€Section€48„18„601Ïprovides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAny€action€alleging€breach€of€fiduciary€dutiesÏby€directors€or€officers,€including€alleged€violations€ofÏthe€standards€established€in€ðð€48„18„301€[forÏdirectors],€ðð€48„18„302€[for€directors]€or€ðð€48„18„403Ï[for€officers],€must€be€brought€within€one€(1)€yearÏfrom€the€date€of€such€breach€or€violation;€provided,Ïthat€in€the€event€the€alleged€breach€or€violation€isÏnot€discovered€nor€reasonably€should€have€beenÏdiscovered€within€the€one„year€period,€the€period€ofÏlimitation€shall€be€one€(1)€year€from€the€date€suchÏwas€discovered€or€reasonably€should€have€beenÏdiscovered.€€In€no€event€shall€any€such€action€beÏbrought€more€than€three€(3)€years€after€the€date€onÏwhich€the€breach€or€violation€occurred,€exceptÏwhere€there€is€fraudulent€concealment€on€the€part€ofÏthe€defendant,€in€which€case€the€action€shall€beÏcommenced€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€allegedÏbreach€or€violation€is,€or€should€have€been,Ïdiscovered.ÓÓÌÌà àIn€òòAmerican€Network€Group,€Inc.€v.€Kostykóó,€804€S.W.2d€447Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990),€the€Court€of€Appeals€applied€Section€48„18„601€to€aÏcause€of€action€against€a€corporate€officer€for€breach€of€fiduciary€duties€thatÏhad€arisen€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€statute.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€heldÏthat€the€application€of€Section€48„18„601€to€a€cause€of€action€that€arose€priorÏto€January€1,€1988€resulted€in€the€former€limitation€period€of€six€years€beingÏshortened€to€one€year,€beginning€on€the€effective€date€of€the€statute,€JanuaryÏ1,€1988,€and€ending€on€January€1,€1989.€€ÌÌà àUnder€the€rule€set€forth€in€òòKostykóó,€any€right€the€plaintiffs€mayÏhave€had€to€recover€from€Anderson€or€Jenkins€for€breach€of€their€fiduciaryÏduties€as€officers€or€directors€of€any€of€the€three€subsidiary€corporations€or€PoÏGroup,€Inc.€expired€on€January€1,€1989,€prior€to€the€date€on€which€the€presentÏsuit€was€filed,€June€30,€1989.€€The€plaintiffs€acknowledge€that€Section€48„18„601€bars€recovery€from€Anderson€or€Jenkins€for€any€breach€of€fiduciary€dutiesÏas€officers€or€directors.ÌÌà àHowever,€the€plaintiffs€dispute€the€applicability€of€Section€48„18„601€to€the€corporate€defendant€Po€Group,€Inc.,€the€majority€shareholder€ofÏeach€of€the€three€subsidiary€corporations€in€which€the€plaintiffs€owned€stock.€€ÏWhen€this€transaction€was€consummated€on€June€30,€1986,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€48„1„907€(1984)€(repealed€Jan.€1,€1988)€provided€that€any€sale€by€aÏcorporation€of€all€or€substantially€all€of€its€property€must€have€the€priorÏapproval€of€shareholders€owning€at€least€two„thirds€(2/3)€of€the€stock€of€theÏcorporation.€€Thus,€the€action€of€Po€Group,€as€the€majority€shareholder€in€theÏthree€subsidiary€corporations,€was€essential€to€the€consummation€of€the€sale.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€allegation€of€wrongdoing€is€directed€at€PoÏGroup,€Inc.,€which€was€not€an€officer€or€director€of€the€subsidiary€corporations.€ÍIn€its€interpretation€of€Section€48„18„601,€the€Court€of€Appeals€failed€toÏdistinguish€between€breach€of€fiduciary€duty€by€officers€and€directors€andÏbreach€of€fiduciary€duty€by€majority€shareholders.€€The€Court€of€Appeals'Ïinterpretation€of€Section€48„18„601€to€include€shareholders€is€not€supported€byÏprior€cases€dealing€with€statutes€of€limitations.€€In€òòLawman€v.€Barnettóó,€177ÏS.W.2d€121,€124€(Tenn.€1944),€the€Court€held€that€a€statute€of€limitationsÏwhich,€by€its€terms,€barred€recovery€under€a€promissory€note€did€not€preventÏthe€holder€of€the€note€from€foreclosing€on€a€mortgage€that€secured€the€note.€ÏThe€Court€noted€that€a€statute€of€limitations€should€not€be€applied€if€a€strainedÏconstruction€of€the€statute€is€necessary.€€òòId.óó€at€128.€€In€òòResolution€Trust€Corp.Ïv.€Woodóó,€870€F.€Supp.€797€(W.D.€Tenn.€1994),€a€federal€case€applyingÏTennessee€law,€the€amended€complaint€alleged€that€the€directors€and€officersÏof€a€failed€bank€were€liable€for€breach€of€implied€contract,€breach€of€fiduciaryÏduty,€gross€negligence,€negligence,€and€negligence€per€se.€€In€holding€thatÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601€applied€only€to€the€cause€of€action€that€wasÏcovered€by€the€express€terms€of€the€statute,€the€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAs€an€initial€matter,€the€Court€must€note€thatÏthe€defendants'€attempt€to€lump€all€five€causes€ofÏaction€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601,€theÏstatute€regarding€breaches€of€fiduciary€duty,€isÏinappropriate.€€The€statute€applies€expressly€toÍbreaches€of€fiduciary€duty.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601.€€Hence,€for€the€Court€to€include€otherÏcauses€of€action€which€were€not€addressed€by€theÏstate€legislature,€the€Court€would€be€operating€in€aÏlegislative€posture€as€opposed€to€its€judicial€œrole.›ÓÓÌòòÌId.óó€at€806.€€€€€ÌÌà à"[I]t€is€a€rule€of€statutory€construction€that€.€.€.€the€mention€of€oneÏsubject€in€a€statute€means€the€exclusion€of€other€subjects€that€are€notÏmentioned."€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991).€€When€aÏstatute€expressly€mentions€certain€categories€and€not€others,€the€"omission€isÏsignificant,€and€it€would€be€inappropriate€for€this€Court€to€imply€an€entirely€newÏtopic€into€a€statute€that€does€not€seek€to€address€it€in€the€first€instance."€€òòIdóó.€ÏOn€this€point,€it€is€significant€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„18„601€appears€inÏChapter€18€of€Title€48,€a€chapter€dealing€exclusively€with€directors€and€officers.€ÏThere€is€no€corresponding€provision€in€Chapter€17€which€relates€to€theÏshareholders.€€ÌÌà àSince,€by€its€express€terms,€Section€48„18„601€applies€to€theÏbreach€of€fiduciary€duties€by€"directors€or€officers,"€and€not€œto›€majorityÏshareholders,€its€one€year€limitations€period€does€not€apply€to€the€actions€ofÍPo€Group,€Inc.€in€its€capacity€as€majority€shareholder€of€the€three€subsidiaryÏcorporations.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌÌà àThe€allegations€of€the€complaint€in€this€case€perhaps€approachÏthe€common€law€action€of€deceit.€€In€òòVance€v.€Schulderóó,€547€S.W.2d€927,€933Ï(Tenn.€1977),€the€Court€held€that€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€was€threeÏyears€in€a€suit€based€on€the€claim€that€the€sale€of€the€plaintiff's€stock€for€lessÏthan€its€full€value€was€induced€by€the€fraudulent€representations€of€theÏdefendant.€€In€that€case,€a€minority€shareholder€sued€the€directors€of€theÏcompany€alleging€that€the€directors'€misrepresentations€of€the€value€of€theÏplaintiff's€stock€induced€the€plaintiff€to€sell€his€stock€at€less€than€its€fair€value.€ÏThe€Court€held€that€the€claim€was€grounded€in€the€tort€of€deceit€for€which€theÏstatute€of€limitations€is€three€years.€€òòId.óó€at€932.€€In€a€federal€case€interpretingÏTennessee€law,€òòCumberland€&€Ohio€Co.€of€Texas,€Inc.€v.€First€Am.€Nat'lÏBankóó,€936€F.2d€846,€848€(6th€Cir.€1991),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€502€U.S.€1034,€112ÏS.Ct.€878€(1992),€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€three€yearÏstatute€applied€in€a€suit€for€damages€incurred€because€the€plaintiff€was€forcedÏby€the€defendant€bank,€pursuant€to€a€financing€agreement,€to€sell€property€forÍless€than€its€fair€value.€€The€court€found€that€the€substance€of€the€allegedÏwrong,€economic€duress,€was€indistinguishable€from€deceit,€and€that€the€suitÏwas€barred€by€the€three€year€statute€of€limitations.€€òòId.óó€at€849.€€OtherÏjurisdictions€which€have€considered€the€limitations€period€applicable€to€actionsÏby€minority€shareholders€against€majority€shareholders€alleging€breach€ofÏfiduciary€duty€have€held€that€such€actions€are€governed€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€for€tortious€injury€to€property.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòKirley€v.€Kirleyóó,€521€N.E.2dÏ1041,€1042€(Mass.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòCrosby€v.€Beamóó,€615€N.E.2d€294,€300Ï(Ohio€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòRussell€v.€Campbellóó,€725€S.W.2d€739,€744€(Tex.€Ct.ÏApp.€1987).€€There€is€a€"growing€common€law€trend€to€declare€'that€a€breachÏof€fiduciary€duty€is€a€tort.'"€€òòKirleyóó,€521€N.E.2d€at€1043.€€The€conclusion€is€thatÏthe€applicable€limitations€period€is€three€years€as€provided€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€28„3„105.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€contend€that€the€limitations€period€started€to€runÏwhen€the€sale€to€œDineLite›€was€closed,€which€was€less€than€three€years€priorÏto€the€date€the€suit€was€filed,€and€that,€therefore,€the€suit€is€not€barred€by€theÏthree€year€statute.€€The€defendants'€position€is€that€the€period€began€whenÍthe€plaintiffs€were€furnished€disclosure€statements€regarding€the€sale€and€that,Ïtherefore,€the€suit€is€barred€by€the€statute.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court,€in€ruling€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€didÏnot€rule€on€when€the€limitations€period€commenced.€€Consequently,€this€issueÏmust€be€determined€on€remand.€€ÌÌà@ àò òV€€ó óÌÌà àIn€its€order€denying€the€defendants'€motion€to€dismiss,€the€trialÏcourt€held€that€"there€are€sufficient€allegations€in€plaintiffs'€complaint€that,€ifÏproven,€would€permit€them€to€pierce€the€corporate€veil€and€sue€defendants€inÏtheir€individual€capacities."€€Because€the€trial€court€later€concluded,€after€theÏdefendants€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment,€that€all€of€the€plaintiffs'€claimsÏare€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations,€it€did€not€address€that€issueÏfurther.ÌÌà àOrdinarily,€a€determination€of€whether€to€pierce€the€corporate€veilÏis€not€appropriate€for€summary€judgment.€€In€òòElectric€Power€Bd.€ofÏChattanooga€v.€St.€Joseph€Valley€Structural€Steel€Corp.óó,€691€S.W.2d€522,Í526€(Tenn.€1985),€the€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€conditions€under€which€the€corporateÏentity€will€be€disregarded€vary€according€to€theÏcircumstances€present€in€each€case€and€the€matterÏis€particularly€within€the€province€of€the€trial€court.€ÏMoreover,€a€determination€of€whether€or€not€aÏcorporation€is€a€mere€instrumentality€of€an€individualÏor€a€parent€corporation€is€ordinarily€a€question€ofÏfact€for€the€jury.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€present€case,€there€are€genuine€issues€of€material€factÏwhich€preclude€summary€judgment€on€the€plaintiffs'€attempt€to€pierce€theÏcorporate€veil€of€Po€Group€and€hold€Anderson€and€Jenkins€personally€liable.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óóó€The€period€of€limitations€applicable€to€the€allegations€stated€inÏthe€complaint€is€three€years.€€Because€the€record€presents€genuine€issues€ofÏmaterial€fact€which€preclude€summary€judgment€on€whether€the€plaintiffs€mayÏpierce€the€corporate€veil€of€Po€Group,€Inc.,€Anderson€and€Jenkins€shall€remainÏas€defendants.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirming€the€trial€court'sÏgrant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendants€is€reversed,€and€theÏcase€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€€ÌÌà àBecause€the€case€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€trial,€theÏdiscretionary€costs€judgment€against€the€plaintiffs€is€vacated.ÌÌà àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellees.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Anderson,Ì€€€and€White,€JJ.€€