because the Assembly had violated the Grant Agreement, and he explicitly denies ever seeking to delay the Museum project. See Defs.’ Resp. Stmt. ¶ 56; Defs.’ Opp’n, Ex. P (G. Cafesjian Dep. Tr.) at 176; Defs.’ Opp’n, Ex. II (G. Cafesjian Aff.) ¶ 12. A trustee may file a lawsuit against a corporation in order to protect his own interests without breaching his fiduciary duty. See Clancy v. King, 405 Md. 541, 954 A.2d 1092, 1106 (2007) (“[A] fiduciary may enforce validly obtained legal rights against his or her firm, even if that transaction results in a profit for the fiduciary at the firm’s expense.”) However, the trustee must properly balance his own interests with the interests of the corporation. See Storetrax.com, Inc. v. Gurland, 397 Md. 37, 915 A.2d 991, 994, 1004, 1008 (2007) (<HOLDING>). As Plaintiffs recognize, “the pertinent
holding that a director did not breach his fiduciary duties by among other things filing a lawsuit against the corporation and seeking summary judgment by default but explaining that the director had to strike the proper balance between his claimed legal right  and fulfilling his fiduciary obligation to act in the corporations best interests which he did in part by giving notice that the litigation was imminent and advising the corporation on how it could avoid the litigation holding that even assuming that the court recognized the allegaert exception that it would not apply where a firm that previously represented a corporation then represented a former director and officer of the corporation against the corporation because the duty of loyalty that the firm owes the corporation would go unprotected where the firm switches sides against its former client holding that an officer or director generally owes a fiduciary duty only to the corporation over which he exercises management authority and any breach of fiduciary duty claims arising out of injuries to the corporation in most cases may only be brought by the corporation itself or derivatively on its behalf holding that a shareholder had standing to bring a direct action against a director of a corporation because the director owed the shareholder a duty separate and apart from that which the director owed to the company recognizing the right of a creditor to sue a corporate director for breach of fiduciary duty