In CSAM Capital, Inc. v. Lauder, 67 AD3d 149 [1st Dept 2009] investors alleged fraud against a general partner of an investment fund. The Supreme Court, relying in part on a letter ["the Heller letter"] from two investors accusing the investment fund of being managed improperly and its managers of violating their fiduciary duty, granted summary judgments in favor of the defendants finding their fraud claim time barred (id. at 151). Reversing the lower court, the Appellate Division found that: "contrary to the findings of the court below, we do not find that the Heller letter could be considered evidence of actual knowledge of fraud. The letter did not allege any facts constituting fraud; rather, it simply proves the uncontested fact that the Hellers suspected mismanagement by CSAM. [M]ere suspicion will not suffice as a ground for imputing knowledge of the fraud. In fact, the exchange . . . demonstrates that the appellants could not have discovered the fraud through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Heller letter sought an explanation for the losses the fund had experienced, satisfying the duty of inquiry In response to this inquiry, Paolella [Director of the fund] explained the rationale for the fund's actions and expressed a hope that the fund would recoup some of its losses moving forward. At the very least, the Paolella letter conveyed a representation that qualified people were acting purposefully in managing the fund. This provided no further grounds from which a reasonable person would necessarily infer fraud." (Id. at 155-56).