of the contract and in connection with the performance and breach of the contract itself. See Intelsat, 935 F.Supp.2d at 109. The Court separately noted that JTI’s fraudulent inducement claim has the potential to render the entire contract unenforceable. See id. (citing Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Wise Metals Grp., LLC, 19 A.D.3d 273, 798 N.Y.S.2d 14, 16 (App.Div.2005)). It did not go so far as to hold that fraudulent inducement alone would allow JTI to both pierce the exculpatory clause and sue for breach of contract damages. Indeed, typically, fraudulent inducement leaves a plaintiff the option to either rescind the entire contract or, alternatively, affirm the contract and sue for tort damages. See, e.g., Turkish v. Kasenetz, 27 F.3d 23, 28 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The Court thus clarifies its earlier ruling
holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations holding that a party may ratify a settlement agreement induced by fraud retain the proceeds and sue to recover fraud damages holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that in the context of a settlement contract the defrauded party may either 1 rescind the settlement or 2 ratify the settlement retain the proceeds and institute an action to recover fraud damages