no evidence that S. Jacobson misled AHP or failed to divulge any information. A. Jacobson sanctioned the redirection of certain business directly to Olympus as part of the parties’ anticipated merger. S. Jacobson’s activities with Olympus after his resignation from AHP were similarly not breaches of his fiduciary duty or improper. AHP has not shown that he used any knowledge gained solely as a director to the detriment of AHP. AHP’s “Eighth Claim for Relief,” (Doc. No. 5-1 at 13), is DISMISSED. 9. Olympus, S. Jacobson, and Davis’s Civil Conspiracy Olympus argues that AHP’s civil conspiracy claim relates only to fraud. If true, AHP’s conspiracy claim would be dismissed based on the Court’s dismissal of AHP’s fraud claim. See Strickland v. Hedrick, 194 N.C.App. 1,19, 669 S.E.2d 61 (2008) (<HOLDING>). AHP argues that its conspiracy claim could
holding that summary judgment on chapter 93a claim is appropriate when summary judgment is granted on fraud claim and chapter 93a claim is solely based on the underlying claim for common law fraud recognizing that although civil conspiracy is a separate actionable tort a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations holding that where summary judgment is granted on the underlying tort claims a conspiracy claim must also fail holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed