With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". dollar; and (3) no other creditors but Har-borcove — and certainly not McVey, the 100% shareholder of SBMC — received any proceeds from the liquidation. [Id. at p. 8]. Inasmuch as the Complaint quantifies the harm suffered by McVey as the loss of value to his SBMC shares, it is not distinct from harm suffered by SBMC, the corporation. A claim of loss for devaluation of stock is a derivative cause of action that belongs exclusively to SBMC, the corporation, or, in this case, SBMC’s estate (i.e. the Trust). Thus, McVey, as “individual stockholder!,] ha[s] no separate and independent right of action for injuries suffered by the corporation which merely result in the depreciation of [his] stock.” Wingate, 795 S.W.2d at 719; see also See Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because the causes of action based on

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 under maryland law that a breach of fiduciary duty claim alleging loss in share value shareholder must allege an injury distinct from an injury to the corporation
C: holding that shareholders claim is derivative if the alleged injury affects the shareholder indirectly in his or her capacity as a shareholder and describing the inquiry as whether the gravamen of the pleadings alleges injury to the plaintiff upon an individual claim as distinguished from an injury which directly affects the shareholders as a whole
D: 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
A.