its creditors or stockholders, and any damages recovered are assets of the corporation.” Waller v. Waller, 187 Md. 185, 49 A.2d 449, 452 (1946). As the LFG Trustee has asserted claims directly on behalf of LES against the LES Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties that the officers and directors owed to the corporation, no derivative action may be main tained by the shareholder of LES to enforce those same rights. Shareholders, in certain instances, may assert a direct suit against officers and directors of a corporation. Shenker, 983 A.2d at 423. Non-derivative suits permit shareholders to enforce personal causes of action against a corporation’s officers and directors. Courts applying Maryland law have held that shareholde on law, or contract. See, e.g. Waller, 49 A.2d at 453 (<HOLDING>); Shenker, 983 A.2d at 420 (holding that a
holding that an overcharge is not necessary for a plaintiff to bring suit on a respa violation holding that a shareholder may bring a direct suit for violation of a duty arising from contract or otherwise holding that shareholders had standing to bring derivative suit against the government but not direct suit due to lack of privity holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract holding only payee has standing to bring suit for banks violation of midnight rule