through Bailey’s allegedly fraudulent conduct. Under the first Granfinanciem factor, actions based solely on breach of fiduciary duty were traditionally actions in equity. In re Evangelist, 760 F.2d 27, 29, 31 (1st Cir.1985); In re Globe Parcel Serv., Inc., 75 B.R. 381, 385 n. 9 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987). American jurisprudence expanded the strictly equitable view of actions for breach of fiduciary duty by recognizing dual aspects to such suits: the alleged breach of fiduciary obligation, a traditionally equitable matter; and the underlying claim giving rise to the breach, which if legal, carried the right to a jury trial. See, e.g., DePinto v. Provident Security Life Ins. Co., 323 F.2d 826, 837 (9th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 950, 84 S.Ct. 965, 968, 969, 11 L.Ed.2d 969, 970 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Thus, while a claim of breach of fiduciary
holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim holding that missouri law applied to the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim because it is corporate law that defines the contours of that duty 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 claim of breach of fiduciary duty can be resolved under connecticut law holding that a majority shareholder was not entitled to a juiy trial on breach of fiduciary duty claim because claim sounded in equity