market area, given the demographic similarities between the markets, and that sales would definitely increase in a certain store if the franchisee ran it properly. Id. The court held that statements were nothing more than projections of future events and were not actionable as fraud under the state law. Id. Similar to the alleged misrepresentations made in America’s Favorite Chicken, all of the statements made by Papa John’s concerned future events, were statements that were merely predictive, and were statements which Defendants could not reasonably relied upon. Kentucky courts have specifically held that it is unreasonable to rely on projections of future profits or future sales in a fraud case. See Rivermont Inn, Inc. v. Bass Hotels Resorts, Inc., 113 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Ky.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). Many other courts agree. See Zar v. Omni
holding that future predictions and opinions especially those regarding future profitability of business cannot form basis for fraud as matter of law holding that projections of future profits or business success may constitute fraud if declarant had exclusive or superior knowledge of the facts holding that in texas future predictions and opinions especially those regarding the future profitability of a business cannot as a matter of law form a basis for fraud holding that to satisfy the element of specific intent to defraud needed to convict for mail fraud the government must show that the defendant knowingly made a material misrepresentation or knowingly omitted a material fact for the purpose of inducing the victim of the fraud to part with property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do absent the misrepresentation or omission holding that mere statements of opinion or prediction such as future profits or how well a business will do in a particular market may not be a basis for a fraud or misrepresentation action because predictions are not past or present material facts