3105, *2 (N.D.Ill.1985) (recognizing an exception to the general rule precluding shareholder suits for injuries to the corporation where there is a special duty, such as a contractual duty, between the wrongdoer and the shareholder, but holding that, under Illinois law, where plaintiff’s complaint alleges dissipation of stock due to mismanagement of the corporation, the real harm is to the corporation, not the plaintiff); Cunningham v. Kartridg Pak Co., 332 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Iowa 1983) ("In order to bring an individual cause of action for direct injuries a shareholder must show that the third-party owed him a special duty or that he suffered an injury separate and distinct from that suffered by the other shareholders.”). 2 . See Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Holland v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl.
holding that standing to sue under a contract requires plaintiff to be in privity or be an intended thirdparty beneficiary holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply holding that beneficiaries of a trust that signed an agreement with the fhlbb were not in privity or have thirdparty beneficiary status because the government did not make any promises expressly intended to benefit them holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship holding that in order for a plaintiff to file suit against the government on a contract claim in the court of federal claims a plaintiff must have either direct privity or thirdparty beneficiary status