involved with Oberlin in the negotiations for the loan agreement; he signed the loan agreement; he was aware of the Echlin breach; he was aware of the material nature of the breach; and he failed to disclose information about the breach to Oberlin. Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Oberlin, we conclude that the complaint sufficiently alleges Edward Slavin’s personal participation in the alleged wrong. As a result, these allegations are sufficient to fit this case into the exception which allows directors and other corporate agents to be held directly liable to injured third parties for torts that they personally committed. See Russell M. Robinson, II, Robinson on North Carolina Corporation Law § 14.08(a); see also Knitting Mills Co., 237 N.C. 97, 74 S.E.2d 351 (<HOLDING>). Again, we note that Oberlin did not assert a
recognizing the ability of corporations to protect property rights in federal court holding that causes of actions against directors of corporations for breach of fiduciary duty are contract actions holding that while a state statute granted a foreign corporation the rights and privileges enjoyed by domestic corporations it did not transform such corporations into domestic or resident corporations holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities recognizing a cause of action against a corporations directors brought by a creditor for the fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporations financial condition