The specific roles played by each corporate Defendant are also adequately delineated; for example, Transmarketing is alleged to have been a conduit to move funds from Bingham and Tetra to Procida. To borrow from a recent case: Here, the circumstances constituting the fraud — the relationships giving rise to the fiduciary duties owed by [the defendants], the details of the alleged embezzlement, and the concealment — generally are stated with particularity. The complaint alleges, among other things, specific diversions of funds, giving in most eases the approximate dates, amounts and purposes. Thus, Rule 9(b) is satisfied as to the core of the complaint.... Spiro, 876 F.Supp. at 559 (emphasis added); see, e.g., Beth Israel Med. Ctr. v. Smith, 576 F.Supp. 1061, 1070-71 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (<HOLDING>); cf. Carr v. Equistar Offshore, Ltd., No. 94
holding defendant waived complaint holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing holding that the firsttofile rule did not bar complaint involving same defendants where firstfiled complaint did not put government on notice of a separate fraudulent scheme holding that failure to identify specific dates and contents of mailings was not fatal to complaint where complaint offered detailed description of defendants overall rico scheme holding that a defendants failure to attach process to its notice of removal was not fatal and did not require remand