case. See PI. Resp. at 4. The court, however, views the holding of California Federal Bank that a “causal connection between the breach and the loss of profits must be definitely established” is neither inconsistent nor incompatible and the court’s determination in this case that a causal connection between the breach and loss of reliance 347, 349-50 (5th Cir.1987) (recognizing an exception, under Mis sissippi law, to the rule that "a shareholder may maintain a nonderivative action for the violation of a duty owed directly to the shareholder as an individualf,]" but holding shareholder’s breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation claims were too speculative to qualify as individual injury to a shareholder); Gaff v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 814 F.2d 311, 317-18 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); with Twohy v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago,
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 corporation can file an answer when the plaintiffs cause of action is such as to endanger rather than advance corporate interests but not where the cause of action is fraud against the corporate directors holding that damages resulting from directors misconduct destroying the value of the corporate stock does not qualify as a direct or personal injuiy to a shareholder and will not support a tort action holding that defendants stock options are concrete and personal because they represent a species of compensation different from the one ordinarily accumulated by corporate officers and directors holding that subclinical asbestosrelated injuiy is not sufficient to support cause of action