19, 2005] Opinion in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in CalFed.” Id. at 20. No opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has spoken directly to the issue of whether the proper standard of causation in a breach of contract case for expectancy damages is different from the standard to be applied in a case seeking damages based on reliance interests. Therefore, one could argue, as plaintiffs have, that the decision in California Federal Bank is limited only to cases where lost profits are claimed and therefore has no applicability in F.2d 1185, 1194-95 (7th Cir.1985) (noting exceptions to general rule that a stockholder has no individual right of action "such as where a sp States, 41 Fed.Cl. 1, 15-16 (1998) (stipulated judgment entered July 21, 1998) (<HOLDING>); Far West Federal Bank S.B. v. Director,
holding that banks damages were benefit of the bargain type damages that fail to constitute a substantial and independent injury sufficient to remove borrowers claim from the operation of the statute of frauds holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract holding that because private plaintiffs were signatories of a breached contract they were entitled to recoveiy independent from that of the corporation but denying expectancy damages claim and not addressing claim for reliance damages holding that private defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity but remanding for a determination of whether they were liable as government actors holding that privity is lacking where plaintiffs were not signatories to the contractual documents