to those duties owed to all of the shareholders. Id. In his Third Amended Complaint Henneberry simply takes out any mention of the other Smartix Shareholders, claiming that “SCOA owed Mr. Henneberry ral Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 548-53 (3rd ed.2004) (stating that a review of federal case law reveals the fact that “court[s] will not accept conclusory allegations concerning the legal effect of the events the plaintiff has set out if these allegations do not reasonably follow from the pleader’s description of what happened, or if these allegations are contradicted by the description itself’). Consequently, this allegation, on its face, fails to establish plaintiffs standing to bring suit as an individual. Cf. Bank of Am. Corp. v. Lemgruber, 385 F.Supp.2d 200, 224 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (<HOLDING>) (citing, inter alia, Glenn v. Hoteltron Sys.,
holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation holding that individuals assumption of the role of president of the corporation and her authority to sign documents on behalf of the corporation demonstrate that she had the requisite control over the corporation for purposes of finding individual liability under section 5a holding that an officer or director generally owes a fiduciary duty only to the corporation over which he exercises management authority and any breach of fiduciary duty claims arising out of injuries to the corporation in most cases may only be brought by the corporation itself or derivatively on its behalf holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal