Opinion ID: 222037
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Negligent-Misrepresentation Claim

Text: Finally, Ashland alleges that Oppenheimer negligently misrepresented its ARS. Under Kentucky law, to plead negligent misrepresentation, Ashland must allege facts showing that (1) Oppenheimer, in the course of its business or in a transaction in which it had a pecuniary interest, failed to exercise reasonable care or competence, and thereby supplied false information for the guidance of Ashland's business transactions; (2) Ashland justifiably relied on this information; and (3) Ashland suffered a pecuniary loss. See Presnell Constr. Managers, Inc. v. EH Constr., LLC, 134 S.W.3d 575, 580-82 (Ky.2004). Like the cause of action for fraud, moreover, a negligent misrepresentation claim requires proof of an actionable misrepresentation, i.e. `false information,' and allegations concerning . . . mere opinions and predictions cannot be deemed to meet that requirement. Flegles, Inc. v. TruServ Corp., 289 S.W.3d 544, 553-54 (Ky. 2009). We need not belabor our analysis of Ashland's final claim, which fails for much the same reason as its promissory-estoppel claim. Namely, Ashland does not allege facts showing that it justifiably relied on Oppenheimer's ambiguous representations, particularly in light of the numerous warnings contained in Oppenheimer's online ARS Brochure, as well as in the ARS' offering documents to which Ashland was directed. And, as a secondary matter, Ashland failed to allege facts indicating that Oppenheimer supplied false information about ARS' liquidityi.e., facts demonstrating that the securities were actually illiquid between July 2007 and early February 2008, the period during which Ashland made its purchases. See Ashland Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., 689 F.Supp.2d at 890. In fact, Ashland's assertion that Oppenheimer executives sold large sums of personal ARS holdings through early February 2008 implies just the oppositethat the market remained liquid right up until its collapse. We accordingly affirm the district court's decision to dismiss Ashland's negligent-misrepresentation claim.