After an earlier ruling on the bank’s note and guaranty claims became law of the case, the trial court granted summary judgment to Arlington Capital and Richard Tucker on Gwinnett Community Bank’s remaining fraud and fiduciary-duty claims and denied the bank summary judgment on three counterclaims. The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Arlington and Tucker on the tort claims because the bank’s evidence did not establish actionable misrepresentations, a fiduciary breach, or recoverable damages; the derivative punitive-damages and attorney-fee claims therefore also failed. It reversed the denial of summary judgment to the bank on Counterclaims II and III, which sought conversion and breach-of-security-agreement damages for lost surplus value, because the prior ruling applying the UCC barred recovery of that surplus; the underlying UCC surplus-damages claim remained pending below. It also reversed the denial of summary judgment on Counterclaim VIII, rejecting the privacy and related claims because no supporting federal law was identified and the bank’s online privacy statement covered consumer—not Arlington’s commercial financing—customers. The majority affirmed in part and reversed in part; Presiding Judge Ellington wrote, Chief Judge Phipps and Judge Miller concurred, Judge Ray concurred in the judgment only, and Presiding Judges Andrews and Barnes and Judge Branch concurred in part and dissented in part on the fraud and damages rulings, with Branch writing.