are entitled to relief, either directly to the corporation or through a derivative action. See Landon v. S & H Mktg. Group, Inc., 82 S.W.3d 666, 677 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2002, no pet.) (upholding breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against officer-director who improperly authorized $40,000 bonus payment to himself). If, on the other hand, the director’s decision not to declare dividends is made for the benefit of the corporation, in compliance with the duties of care and loyalty, no relief is warranted. In that instance, a director generally will have fulfilled the duties by acting in the best interest of the corporation, even if there was an incidental injury to one or more individual shareholders. See, e.g., Rowe v. Rowe, 887 S.W.2d 191, 198 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). In sum, a remedy exists for dividend
holding that sole shareholder could recover on behalf of company but not in individual capacity for former shareholder and officers misappropriation of corporate assets 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 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 shareholder could not prevail on breachoffiduciaryduty claim against other shareholder because alleged mishandling of funds did not result in any injury to the corporation holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees