of the profits and/or other monetary sanctions.” Am. Compl. ¶ 69; see also Am. Compl. ¶ 123 (stating that Defendants “engaged and participated in a continuous course of conduct to misrepresent, omit to disclose, and conceal material information about the true nature and value of securities of Veras Offshore ... in connection with Gottex’s acquisition of Veras Offshore securities.”). Alternatively, Gottex could have sued to recover rescissionary damages the amount that it alleges was wrongfully withheld when Veras refused to return the full amount of its investment. See, e.g., Clark v. John Lamula Investors, Inc., 583 F.2d 594, 604 (2d Cir.1978) (permitting plaintiff to recover rescissionary damages for Rule 10b-5 claim); Chasins v. Smith, Barney & Co., 438 F.2d 1167, 1173 (2d Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>); Kronfeld v. Advest, Inc., 675 F.Supp. 1449,
holding that even though the contract limited the buyers remedies to specific performance or a refund of earnest money they were entitled to damages in the amount of the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property where the seller thwarted the buyers right to specific performance by selling the property to another at a higher price holding damage award resulting from a breach of an agreement to purchase securities is the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the asset at the time of the breach holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach holding merely that to the extent a breaching party claims that the appropriate measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price it holds the burden of proving that there is in fact an available market for the goods in issue