About four years later, the petitioners launched proceedings to hold BNY and Merrill Lynch to account. The respondents` applications for release were accepted and the petitioners appealed. It is significant that the Appeal Division found that the Appeals Tribunal should not have dismissed the petitions filed against BNY on the grounds that the claims raised were excluded by the publications, BNY having not answered in the affirmative, that all petitioners who were not represented by legal advice at the time of signing the instruments were fully aware of the nature and legal effect of the dissemination at that time. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that the Alternative Court had duly established that claims against BNY were prescribed as an accounting requirement, given that accounting claims were pending when Merrill Lynch succeeded BNY in 2001 and 2002 as agent. In addition, the Tribunal found that the alternative court had properly concluded that the rights against BNY are not burdened by fraud and that the fair Estoppel doctrine is not applicable. A few weeks after taking a position in the salt, the second department upheld three decrees of the Nassau Court (McCarty III, s.) which acceded to the demands of the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) and the Merrill Lynch Trust Company (Merrill Lynch), the applications for judicial accounting of four separate trusts, two trusts of wills and two in vivo trusts created by the deceased , to reject. The petitioners were the beneficiaries of each trust. Initially, BNY played the role of co-trustee of the trusts until she resigned and was relayed by Merrill Lynch. Following his resignation, the petitioners published bnY in favour of trust management. Following the death of the fraudsters` son and Merrill Lynch`s estate as agent, the four trusts were terminated and the petitioners published in support of Merrill Lynch, which freed them from all claims based on trust management.