The court’s final decision also will incorporate this reasoning to evidence consideration of California Federal Bank. CONCLUSION For the aforegoing reasons, the Government’s November 17, 2003 Motion for Reconsideration is denied; the Government’s March 12, 2004 Motion for Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part; and the Government’s February 25, 2005 Motion for Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs will advise the Government and the court no later than May 6, 2005 whether the pending claims brought under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution should be set for trial or voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Compare, e.g., Strougo v. Bassini, 282 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v.
holding that a shareholder lacks standing to bring a suit based on loss in value to his or her shares as this injury derives from and thus is not distinct from the injury to the corporation holding under maryland law that a breach of fiduciary duty claim alleging loss in share value shareholder must allege an injury distinct from an injury to the corporation holding that to state a subsection 1962a claim plaintiffs must allege a use or investment injury that is distinct from any injury resulting from the racketeering predicate acts themselves 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 an inmate alleging denial of access to the courts must show an actual injury