contributed to the damage,” preclude dismissal at this time. See Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(B). According to Allstate and the Trustee, they did not learn of their securities and fraud-based claims until July 2009 when the Town provided them with the 2005 Report, which contained the event and attendance projections that were substantially less than those in the Official Statements. Thus, while the Town contends that Allstate and the Trustee discovered or should have discovered the cause of its damages when Fitch lowered its rating on the Bonds, the parties’ pleadings set forth facts indicating that they did not discover the alleged fraud underlying the devaluation until the 2005 Feasibility Study was revealed. See Aaron v. Fromkin, 196 Ariz. 224, 228, 994 P.2d 1039, 1043 (Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Along the same lines, it is also unclear at
holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that discovery of the fraudulent practice on which liability is based rather than the discovery of damages commences the running of the limitations period for securities fraud holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that oneyear period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer