SUMMARY ORDER

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of this case, as well as with the issues raised on appeal. Briefly, all claims arise from an Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement” or “Agreement”) between plaintiff-appellant lender (“Eugenia”) and defendant-cross-defendant-appellee borrower AMC Computer Corp. (“AMC”) dated January 30, 2003.

We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant summary judgement and, in the course of that review, we draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of *199 the non-moving party. See, e.g., Aulicino v. New York City Dep’t of Homeless Servs., 580 F.3d 73, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2009). We will affirm a summary judgment award only where such review reveals “no genuine issue as to any material fact” and the movant is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Eugenia’s derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty fail as a matter of law because Eugenia failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to damages. To prove breach of fiduciary duty under New York law, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “breach by a fiduciary of a duty owed to plaintiff; defendant’s knowing participation in the breach; and damages.” 1 SCS Commc'ns, Inc., v. Hertick Co., 360 F.3d 329, 342 (2d Cir. 2004). For purposes of our analysis here, defendantsappellees’ principal assertion below was that Eugenia could not prove causation and damages. 2 Eugenia failed to adduce sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to damages despite arguing that defendants-appellees caused the destruction of AMC and “rendered the company incapable of paying its debts, and substantially increased those debts.” That is, at the time the parties entered the Credit Agreement, AMC was already insolvent. As a result, Eugenia cannot demonstrate that thereafter defendantsappellees’ mismanagement rendered the corporation insolvent. Eugenia’s derivative fiduciary claims thus fail.

We also agree with the district court that Eugenia’s claims for fraudulent inducement, fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud fail as a matter of law because Eugenia suffered no out-of-pocket loss. See Crigger v. Fahnestock & Co., 443 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2006); Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413, 421, 646 N.Y.S.2d 76, 668 N.E.2d 1370 (1996).

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court dismissing Eugenia’s claims is AFFIRMED.