action against the plaintiff shareholder as an individual, since the shareholder brings the action in a representative capacity rather than an individual capacity. Tryforos v. Icarian Dev. Co., 49 F.R.D. 1, 3 (N.D.Ill.1970); Higgins v. Shenango Pottery Co., 99 F.Supp. 522, 524 (W.D.Pa.1951). But this rule is qualified in actions involving closely held corporations because in these cases the action effectively determines the rights of individuals who have a personal interest in the recovery. See Burg v. Horn, 37 F.R.D. 562 (E.D.N.Y.1965) (recognizing that the general principal is hardly without exceptions). Further, a shareholder in a closely held corporation is an “opposing party” for purposes of a counterclaim. See Berger v. Reynolds Metals Co., 39 F.R.D. 313, 315 (E.D.Pa.1966) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, Enfission is a closely
recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action holding improper counsels argument that opposing counsel knew why plaintiff delayed in bringing action where opposing counsels knowledge was not in evidence holding that a plaintiff bringing a stockholders derivative suit is an opposing party where he is only one of three major stockholders holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law holding res judicata barred plaintiffs derivative suit because of a final judgment in a prior derivative lawsuit