Shareholders’ Motion to Dismiss at 22-24; Memorandum of Law in Support of AAB’s Motion to Dismiss at 12. A body of case law and commentary has developed to address the propriety of suing a corporation’s- officers and directors for intentionally interfering with contracts to which the corporation is a party. Because a corporation can only act through its officers and directors, a corporate officer or director can only interfere with a contract to which the corporation is a party where the officer or director acts outside the scope of his authority as an officer or director. See Communications Programming, Inc. v. Summit Manufacturing, Inc., No. Civ. A. 98-263, 1998 WL 329265, at *8 (D.N.J. June 16, 1998); see also Pennington Tra N.J.Super. 124, 127, 611 A.2d 674, 676 (Law Div.1992) (<HOLDING>). Where it is a corporation’s
recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage holding that plaintiff does not maintain standing to claim tortious interference with prospective economic advantage where he did not allege an injury distinct from the other shareholders nor does he allege that  wrongdoer owed him a duty independent of its duty to all of the shareholders holding that the first element in a prima facie case of tortious interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of business expectancy recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage holding that an action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage may not be directed against an individual who is an officer and the sole stockholder of a corporation which is a party to the economic relationship at issue