Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Plitt v. Stonebraker, 195 F.2d 39, 43 (D.C.Cir.1952) (“The circumstances that a security for such payment [to a holder-transferee] has come into existence after he acquired the obligation is not important.”). The Court agrees with the Government in its interpretation of the receivership statute. The widely agreed upon notion of a shareholder is someone who, first and foremost, holds shares. The shareholder derives certain benefits from the risk of his or her investment, including the right to receive any compensation distributed, including derivatives. The shareholder relinquishes the right to claim a benefit upon the transfer of his or her shares, and is no longer considered to be a shareholder by the term’s definition. See Mendenhall v. Fleming Co., 504 F.2d 879, 880 (5th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>); Armstrong v. Frostie Co., 453 F.2d 914 (4th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trustee could not bring a claim against sole shareholders of bankrupt corporation where shareholders had not looted or otherwise injured the corporation (B) holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock (C) holding that a corporation exists as an entity apart from its shareholders even where the corporation has but one shareholder the general proposition of corporate identity apart from its shareholders leads us to conclude in accordance with decisions from other jurisdictions that the attorneys client is the corporation and not the shareholders (D) holding that the statute of frauds found in chapter 8 of mississippis ucc applies to the sale of shares of stock in a corporation comprised of only twelve shareholders (E) holding that after the sale of stock former shareholders have no standing to file a claim against the corporation
Output (English): holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock