conducted business with First United. In that separate action, the district court found that some of the fraudulent-transfer claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations. National Bank argues that it is inequitable to offset its claim with interest it collected more than six years ago, when the receiver is not allowed to “claw back” interest other banks earned in that time frame. The statute of limitations is generally used as a defense to a filed lawsuit and no fraudulent-transfer claims have been asserted against National Bank. Additionally, courts in other jurisdictions have held that the statute of limitations does not prevent the court from limiting the claim of a party that is seeking affirmative equitable relief from the court. See In re Madojf, 424 B.R. at 136-37
holding discriminatory incidents which occur outside the limitations period are actionable where a plaintiff  challenges not just one incident  but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period  holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims holding that statute of limitations did not prevent trustee from accounting for all transfers received by a claimant for purposes of selecting a distribution methodology including those that occurred outside the limitations period holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only holding that employer was estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense where the insurer had arranged to have the claimant examined by one of its physicians after the statute of limitations had run