benefitted, which was the concern in Holmes. Unlike the situation in Holmes, Commercial and its fellow class members are not alleging an injury that was derivative of injury to others. Commercial does not seek to recover based on “the misfortunes visited upon a third person by the defendant’s acts.” Holmes, 503 U.S. at 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311; see also Laborers, 191 F.3d at 238-39 (“[T]he critical question posed by the direct injury test is whether the damages a plaintiff sustains are derivative of an injury to a third party. If so, then the injury is indirect; if not, it is direct.”). It claims to have lost profits directly as the result of Colin’s underbidding, which it achieved through its violation of § 1324(a). See Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335, 1343 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Mid Atlantic Telecom Inc. v. Long Distance
holding plaintiffs could not obtain compensation for both lost value and lost profit holding that the value of business opportunities lost due to defendants rico violations is compensable holding that damages for loss of favorable interest rate on oneyear certificate of deposit were excluded because they constituted lost profits or opportunities holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a civil rico claim predicated on illegal gambling because they failed to allege a compensable injury holding that severance payments are compensable as actual damages and not speculative in nature like damages for lost opportunities and profits