may bring a direct action against a corporation’s officers and directors if the shareholders suffered a direct harm that is distinct from any harm suffered by the corporation. Strougo v. Bassini 282 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir.2002) (applying Maryland law). See also Giddens v. CorePartners, Inc., 2011 WL 2934855, at *5, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77408, at *13 (D.Md. July 18, 2011) (“[Plaintiff] is unable to claim a direct harm to her as a shareholder that would support a direct action against the majority shareholders and directors.”). Where the harm to shareholders flows from injuries to a corporation, including injuries that decrease the value of a corporation’s assets or impairs the corporation’s ability to generate profits, there is no dir 2005 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS 14, at *21 (Md.Cir.Ct.2005) (<HOLDING>). Such duties may be established by statute,
holding that unless a shareholder can show personal cause of action and personal injury claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty belong to the corporation and not the shareholder holding that a shareholder who disposes of his shares loses standing to bring a derivative action no longer a shareholder in the corporation the defendant cannot maintain a derivative action on its behalf recognizing the right of a creditor to sue a corporate director for breach of fiduciary duty holding that shareholder could not prevail on breachoffiduciaryduty claim against other shareholder because alleged mishandling of funds did not result in any injury to the corporation holding that a shareholder had standing to bring a direct action against a director of a corporation because the director owed the shareholder a duty separate and apart from that which the director owed to the company