With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the potential liability for negligent misrepresentation of accountants, but the New York Court of Appeals has since made clear that the Credit Alliance doctrine applies to professionals more generally. Ossining Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 N.Y.2d 417, 424, 541 N.Y.S.2d 335, 539 N.E.2d 91 (1989). 8 . We note that while the total number of Notes offered was also limited, and thus potential Noteholders were not entirely "indefinite,” as would be the potential number of people shown a balance sheet by a business, we are not convinced that a secondary investor would be "known” to Aladdin in advance such that a secondary Noteholder could bring the claim asserted by Bayerische here. See White v. Guarente, 43 N.Y.2d 356, 361, 401 N.Y.S.2d 474, 372 N.E.2d 315 (1977) (<HOLDING>). That case, in any event, is not before us. 9

A: holding that actual limited partners in hedge fund were a known group possessed of vested rights marked by a definable limit and made up of certain components but distinguishing them from prospective limited partners unknown at the time and who might be induced to join
B: holding that under the first amendment where there is no proof of actual malice damages are limited to actual injury which excludes punitive damages but is not limited to outofpocket loss
C: holding that the information contained in the certificate of limited partnership binds the partnership and the partners with respect to third parties
D: holding that limited partner does not have standing to sue for injuries to partnership that merely diminish value of that partners interest
A.