to a prospective purchaser such as plaintiff in that case, who in turn might reasonably rely on the misleading information in the report. Id. at 486, 655 A.2d 1354. Reliance by purchasers on the content of a public offering statement is foreseeable. If plaintiffs certification that the sellers were marketing this condominium as a “condotel” is correct, any known restriction which would prohibit its use as a “condotel” should have been included -within the public offering statement. Plaintiffs certification asserted facts demonstrating that defendant knew that the Enclave owners had not obtained a mercantile license from Atlantic City which would permit transient rentals of condominium units. The motion judge, citing Albright v. Burns, 206 N.J.Super. 625, 503 A.2d 386 (App.Div.1986) (<HOLDING>), correctly concluded that the mere absence of
holding that an attorney owes a fiduciary duty to persons though not strictly clients who he knows or should know rely on him in his professional capacity holding that a professional owes no duty to third persons unless the professional had actual knowledge that those persons would rely on his rendering of professional services holding that an attorney for a debtor owes a general fiduciary duty to preserve the bankruptcy estate holding that  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal