granted. ii. The Langley defendants The Langley defendants make a similar argument, asserting that plaintiffs, as mere stock purchasers, have failed to allege that they were in a fiduciary relationship with the Langley defendants giving rise to a duty. Plaintiffs respond that the lack of a traditional accountant-client relationship does not foreclose the possibility of a special relationship between the Langley defendants and plaintiffs. Iowa courts have recognized that the requisite duty of care may be found where the defendant is in the profession of supplying information in an advisory nature in a nonadversarial manner, and the supplier of the information knows the recipient of the information intends to rely on the information. See Ryan v. Kanne, 170 N.W.2d 395, 402-403 (Iowa 1969) (<HOLDING>); see also Fry v. Mount, 554 N.W.2d 263, 266
holding that an accountant owed a duty of care not only to his own client but to a limited and foreseeable class of third parties for whose benefit and guidance the accountant knows the information is intended holding in accountant ease that the restatement provision requires that the auditor know that his client intends to supply information to another person or limited group of persons holding that a landowner owed no duty of care to a contractors employee in the situation posed by the parties holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise holding that broker owed no fiduciary duty to client as a matter of law