With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of a plan to destroy the faith these organizations had in Henneberry and improperly to take control of Smartix.” (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 102.) The result of defendants’ action was that MasterCard and Major League Baseball “have lost faith in Mr. Henneberry to the extent that Mr. Henneberry can no longer obtain a consultancy with those organizations despite his efforts to do so.” (Third Am. Compl. 11256.) Because the statements at issue here were allegedly about Henneberry personally, such an individualized statement was distinct from any disparaging statements regarding Smartix as a whole. The harm to plaintiff is greater than the harm to any other shareholder, as plaintiff alleges lost future earnings. See Abrams v. Donati, 66 N.Y.2d 951, 498 N.Y.S.2d 782, 783, 489 N.E.2d 751, 752 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The Court, therefore, turns to the merits of

A: holding inter alia that appellant must use local cpiu where available
B: holding that a claim for loss of consortium  cannot stand because there is no evidence of bodily injury sustained
C: holding individual standing not available where inter alia there is no claim that plaintiff sustained a loss disproportionate to that sustained by the corporation
D: holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted
C.