was provided full and fair disclosure and access to all pertinent information regarding any attempt to obtain control of a corporation by a cash tender offer or privately negotiated securities offer. Id. at 26, 97 S.Ct. at 942. Congress believed that Section 13(d) would level the playing field between the shareholder/investor, the tender offeror, and the existing management of the target corporation. However, despite Congress’s efforts to protect the shareholder and potential investor with Section 13(d), it failed to explicitly provide for a private right of action to enforce the provision. It is this fact that Defendants rely upon in support of their motions to dismiss. While it is clear that no portion of Section 13 explicitly provides Loan Assoc., 592 F.Supp. 1089 (S.D.Fla.1984) (<HOLDING>); Gateway Industries v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 495
holding that issuer and shareholder had no right to bring an action for equitable relief under  13d holding that a shareholder who disposes of his shares loses standing to bring a derivative action no longer a shareholder in the corporation the defendant cannot maintain a derivative action on its behalf holding that there is no private right of action for any person under  13d 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 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