DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and over 600 other investors, alleging that several individuals, assisted by employees of defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and its successor, Citizens Bank, N.A. (“Citizens”), perpetrated a nearly decade-long Ponzi scheme by which the plaintiffs and other putative class members were defrauded of approximately 102 million dollars. (Dkt. #1). Familiarity with the underlying facts, summarized below, is presumed. Bank of America and Citizens (hereafter, the “defendant banks”) now move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against them — specifically, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and common law conspiracy — for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. #17, #18). For the reasons set forth below, those motions are granted. FACTUAL HISTORY In brief, plaintiffs allege that they were the victims of a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by the individual defendants, Perry Santillo (“Santillo”), Christopher Parris (“Parris”), Paul Anthony LaRocco (“LaRocco”), John Piccarreto (“Piccarreto”), Thomas Brenner (“Brenner”), and Dominic Siwik (“Siwik”) (collectively, “individual defendants”).1 Plaintiffs allege that due to the personal and business banking relationships between the individual defendants and the defendant banks, the defendant banks are likewise liable for the fraudulent scheme. The plaintiffs allege that in or about 2007 or 2008, several of the individual defendants converted a previously legitimate investment brokerage enterprise into a fraudulent scheme, by which they misused and misappropriated investor funds to pay off previous investors and to fund their own “jet-setting lifestyle.” (Dkt. #1 at 2.) Plaintiffs contend that defendants, in facilitating the scheme, opened and transferred funds in and out of more than one hundred accounts at Bank of America, and twenty accounts at Citizens. According to the complaint, some accounts at Bank of America were initially opened in 2005 due to individual defendant Parris’s preexisting relationship with Rochester, New York branch manager Derline Cunningham (“Cunningham”). Plaintiffs allege that in the years that followed, Cunningham was a “key player” in the fraudulent scheme, coordinating the opening of new accounts, expediting the availability of funds, lying to creditors, and placing quarterly calls to American Express on Santillo’s behalf, falsely confirming that his accounts held sufficient funds to cover his debts, when they did not. (Dkt. #1 at
