because two sisters purchased assets from Father’s estate, and because plaintiffs have not tendered back the proceeds they received from these sales. This argument ignores the testimony that plaintiffs did not know what property Father held at the time of his death, as well as the fact that it is undisputed that some of the Martom properties were not even listed among Father’s assets in the probate of his estate. Moreover, it is well settled that beneficiaries suing for a breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee are not limited to rescission as the remedy for the breach but may instead recover damages from the trustee. See generally G.G. Bogert, et al., The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 862 (6th ed.1987); see also Albert v. Black Motor Co., 357 S.W.2d 714, 719 (Ky.Ct. App.1962) (<HOLDING>). The determination of what damages would make
holding that president of company who breached fiduciary duty in purchasing stock was properly required to pay damages rather than transfer shares back to company holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company holding company president personally liable pursuant to language in contract stating that if companys net worth is reduced in excess of ten percent 10  then it is agreed that the company president shall guarantee the shortfall holding that where company made statements constituting inability to pay orally at bargaining sessions company had duty to show its books to the union holding that a profit of 35 million in insider trading by the president and ceo of the company was sufficient to plead scienter because that corporate insider sold 40 of his stock holdings in the company and several other corporate insiders sold large positions in the company