244 F.R.D. 204, 216-17 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 9(b) where it asserted that allegedly fraudulent statements were made by defendant’s unnamed representatives and failed to provide specific timeframe for statements or identify where statements were made); Inst. of Applied Human Dynamics v. Mut. of Am., No. 02-2331, 2003 WL 22126691, at **34 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2003) (plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 9(b) where it “fail[ed] to mention where the misrepresentations were made and only narrow[ed] the relevant time period to two decades,” and failed to provide “specific facts that support the allegation that [defendant] ‘knowingly and intentionally’ ” made the representations); Doehla v. Wathne Ltd., Inc., No. 98-6087, 1999 WL 566311, at **1718 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Skylon Corp. v. Guilford Mills, Inc., No.
holding that charge of money laundering need not satisfy rule 9b holding allegations that fraudulent statements were made during fourmonth period insufficient to satisfy rule 9b holding a complaints general allegations lacking any details or facts setting out the who what when where and how of the allegedly fraudulent conductwere insufficient to satisfy rule 9b internal quotation marks omitted holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b holding a complaint failed to satisfy rule 9b where the allegations were lacking in detail