to their own interests. Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 714 F.Supp. 1362, 1371 n. 3 (D.N.J.1989). The adverse domination theory initially gained prominence in failed bank and thrift litigation. See generally Matthew G. Dore, Statutes of Limitation and Corporate Fiduciary Claims: A Search for Middle Ground on the Rules/Standards Continuum, 63 Brook. L.Rev. 695, 713-14 (1997). At the same time, the FDIC began to argue with limited success that the doctrine should serve to toll notice provisions relating to discovery of loss in insurance policies that covered failed financial institutions. See, e.g., FDIC v. Oldenburg, 34 F.3d 1529, 1544 (10th Cir.1994)(citing cases); California Union Ins. Co. v. American Diversified Sav. Bank, 948 F.2d 556, 565 (9th Cir.1991)(<HOLDING>). In making his argument, the Trustee relies
holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations recognizing doctrine recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling