claims, that the statute of limitations bars all Plaintiffs’ claims, and that the equitable doctrines of fraud, unclean hands, and laches should bar recovery. 1. Standing Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c), the deadline for objecting to discharge in this case was August 27, 2013. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 26, the day be-, fore the deadline ran. But as Whitting-ton points out and Plaintiffs do not dispute, Texas law does not permit claims such as this to be brought by individual limited partners. See, e.g., Nauslar v. Coors Brewing Co., 170 S.W.3d 242, 250 (TexApp.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) (“[D]am-ages for loss in value of the partnership interest ... are subsumed in the partnership’s causes of action.”); Wingate v. Hajdik, 795 S.W.2d 717, 719-20 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>); Hall v. Douglas, 380 S.W.3d 860, 872-74
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 under pennsylvania law that where fraud mismanagement or other wrong damages a corporations assets a shareholder does not have a direct cause of action however a corporation can suffer an injury unto itself and any claim it asserts to recover for that injury is independent and separate from the claims of shareholders creditors and others 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 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 sole shareholder could recover on behalf of company but not in individual capacity for former shareholder and officers misappropriation of corporate assets