of the corporation to determine a fair value to pay the minority shareholders. We read Weinberger differently. Wein-berger focused on whether the price offered by the corporation was fair in light of the surrounding circumstances. The court’s evaluation of the fairness of the corporation’s dealing with the minority shareholders was not intended to be a vehicle to evaluate every corporate action and its impact on the value of the stock. The Weinberger court was clear that the narrow remedy provided by an appraisal action does not encompass claims of fraud, self-dealing or breach of fiduciary duty; those claims are separate and distinct and can be redressed outside the appraisal remedy. Weinberger, 457 A.2d at 714; accord Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 542 A.2d 1182, 1189 (Del.1988) (<HOLDING>). We interpret our statute similarly. An
holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action holding that a developers claim for breach of fiduciary duty was actually a contract action properly brought in the court of claims holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding trial court correctly denied motion to amend appraisal action to include claims of conspiracy illegality fraud and breach of fiduciary duty