contractual duty exists between the wrongdoer and shareholder or where the shareholder suffers an injuiy separate and distinct from that suffered by other shareholders,” but holding that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim, under Spanish law, arising out of bank’s alleged failure to provide agreed financing to corporation.); Slovick v. Gannet Co., Inc., 1985 47, 149-50 (2004) (reversing earlier holding that plaintiffs’ increased cost of borrowing money to acquire thrift was an injury separate and distinct from the injuiy to the corporation, because newly-formed corporation incurred the increased cost of borrowing money, not individual plaintiffs); Hometown Financial, Inc. v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 477, 484-86 (2003), appeal docketed, No. 04-5116 (Fed.Cir. July 12, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Statesman Savings Holding Corporation v.
holding that shareholders that made a capital contribution to acquire a failing thrift were entitled to restitution but lacked standing directly to recover lost profits and denying the governments motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for reliance interest holding that an unestablished business may recover lost prospective profits holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that the plaintiffs attempted to recover lost profits which under the facts of the case were consequential damages holding past profits coupled with other facts and circumstances may establish lost profits