With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". shareholder does not have standing to bring a direct cause of action under federal law when the only damage alleged is the diminution in the value of the corporate shares.”). But the two concepts overlap and that is particularly true in the context of civil RICO claims. As a general matter, they overlap because a plaintiff who lacks standing to vindicate a derivative injury also will be unable to show proximate cause. And as a matter of RICO law, the two concepts overlap because they both grow out of the “by reason of’ limitation in RICO — namely, the requirement that claimants establish that their injury was “by reason of’ a RICO predicate act violation. The “by reason of’ limitation, in other words, bundles together a variety of “judici n., Inc., 973 F.2d 474, 487 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); County of Oakland, 866 F.2d at 850-51

A: holding that a shareholder lacks standing to bring a suit based on loss in value to his or her shares as this injury derives from and thus is not distinct from the injury to the corporation
B: holding that beneficiaries of an estate lacked standing under rico to sue for an injury derivative of the estates injury
C: holding that a rico plaintiff alleging destruction of the value of his stock lacks standing because his injury is derivative of the corporations injury
D: holding that health care trust funds that paid medical claims could not sue tobacco companies under rico because their injury was derivative of smokers injury and stating a direct relationship between the injury and the alleged wrongdoing although not the sole requirement of rico  proximate causation has been one of its central elements citations omitted
C.