the seller—as if it were its own cause of action. Lehman XS Trust, Series 2006-4N, by U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 991 F.Supp.2d 472, 478 (S.D.N.Y.2014). The same is true under Delaware law. In Delaware, a claim accrues at the time of the alleged unlawful act, not when the plaintiff suffers an injury. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 860 A.2d 312, 319 (Del.2004). Thus, if a contract imposes repurchase or cure obligations on the seller and the seller fads to repurchase or cure on demand, the claim would still accrue as soon as the defendant breaches the underlying representations and warranties. See, e.g., Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings LLC, No. 5140-CS, 2012 WL 3201139, at *6, *17 (Del.Ch. Aug. 7, 2012) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). 2. Lehman Holdings’ claims accrued when the
holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run holding that when the representations and warranties were made on the date of closing the statute of limitations began to run on that date even though the contract imposed cure and repurchase obligations on the defendant recognizing that the statute of limitations for a survival action began to run on the date of the decedents injury as though he was bringing his own lawsuit holding that limitations began to run when the defendant began wrongfully discharging water containing harmful chemicals on the plaintiffs land and not on the date when the extent of the damages to the land were fully ascertainable holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered