Case Explained: ROBERT S. MARTIN as a Trustee of (i) the Martin 2008-A Investment Trust, (ii) as a Trustee of the Martin 2013-A Investment Trust, (iii) as a Trustee of the RPM 2005 Family Trust, and (iv) as a Trustee of the RSM 1988 Trust v. ERIC BISCHOFF Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Counter Claimant-Appellant USCA11 Case: 23-13851 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2026 Page: 1 of 19 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 Docket: 8:21-cv-01045-MSS-AAS The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Eric Bischoff is barred by the six-year statute of limitations under New York law from challenging the validity of the 2011 share transfer, rejecting his arguments that equitable estoppel applied or that the “void” language in the shareholder agreement rendered the transfer void ab initio regardless of the time bar. However, the court vacated the district court’s conclusion that the 2013 and 2016 transfers were valid and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court held that while the statute of limitations bars a legal remedy (a breach of contract claim), it does not validate the underlying contractual obligation or prove that the transfer complied with the shareholder agreement’s eligibility requirements. Consequently, the district court erred by treating the time-barred 2011 transfer as conclusively establishing Robert P. Martin (RPM) as a permissible Group B Shareholder for the subsequent transfers without independently analyzing whether RPM actually met the specific criteria under the Agreement—either being an immediate family member who is an active employee or a beneficiary of the Alvina Martin 1988 Trust. On remand, the district court must determine the validity of the 2013 and 2016 transfers based on whether RPM satisfied these substantive eligibility requirements, rather than relying on the procedural bar of the statute of limitations regarding the 2011 transfer. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.