and included specific damages that may or may not be recoverable will not prove fatal to Henneberry’s claim here. The Court reiterates, also, that Plaintiff is allowed to assess his damages through the discovery process. Id. E. Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 1. Plaintiff’s Standing to Plead Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage As the Court determined in Henneberry II, Henneberry has standing to bring this claim because he has alleged clearly separate and distinct injuries from any injuries to Smartix, as the alleged loss of future earnings from the named consulting projects are personal to him and not the class of Smartix . shareholders as a whole. See, e.g., PI, Inc. v. Ogle, No. 95 Civ. 1723, 1997 WL 37941, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.30, 1997) (<HOLDING>). Henneberry re-alleges here that defendants’
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 derivative actions do not require the support of a majority of shareholders or even all of the minority shareholders 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 recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage