Except for the rights of the dissolved Halliwell Associates under the alleged contract, the Halliwells, as individuals, have no contract rights of their own that can now be asserted against Ma-guire. Thus any claim they may have against Maguire must be brought deriva tively as shareholders of the dissolved corporation. The second type of action that arises from the period of corporate existence but endures past the survival statute’s windup period are those involving ascertainable or previously asserted claims that have the character of a tangible property asset and which have devolved by law or have been assigned to the shareholders. See, e.g., Hutson v. Fulgham Industries, Inc., 869 F.2d 1457 (11th Cir.1989); Jenot v. White Mountain Acceptance Corp., 124 N.H. 701, 474 A.2d 1382 (1984)(<HOLDING>). As the Halliwells vigorously assert,
recognizing that a corporation is properly aligned as a defendant in a shareholder derivative suit when the corporation is in antagonistic hands holding weintraub not controlling once a corporation is dissolved recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation holding shareholder of dissolved corporation could after windup period expired foreclose on mortgage once held by corporation holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation