process’ ”); id. ¶ 85 (“Defendants had explained ... differences [in market timing models] to the regulators.”). Got-tex asserts that these communications constituted inquiry, and, furthermore, that “Defendants’ counsel’s assurances and statements regarding the investigation and whether Defendant[s’] trading practices had been within mutual fund parameters,” constituted “reliable words of comfort” suf- 332 580 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES fícient to dissipate any duty to inquire. Pl.’s Mem. in Opp.- at 12-14 (citing LC Capital Partners, 318 F.3d at 155). [13]“[RJeassuring statements will prevent the emergence of a duty to inquire or dissipate such a duty only if an investor of ordinary intelligence would reasonably rely on the stat ., 833 F.Supp. 362, 376 n. 12 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>). Given the volume and nature of the
holding that discretionary immunity does not apply where plaintiff alleged facts that if true constituted a breach of states duty of reasonable care holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements holding that reassuring statements did not relieve plaintiff of duty to undertake reasonable inquiry holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that the key inquiry with respect to the admission of inculpatory statements as impeachment is the issue of voluntariness