▁the ▁company ' s ▁assets ▁for ▁its ▁own ▁benefit ▁and ▁to ▁the ▁ex clusion ▁of ▁Y ▁share hold ers . ▁Moreover , ▁Atlas view ▁argued ▁that ▁an ▁" in vest ment ▁agreement " ▁with ▁Mr ▁Sh al son ▁was ▁bre ached ▁when ▁the ▁loan ▁was ▁taken . ▁ ▁Mr ▁Sh al son ▁and ▁Re ed best ▁argued ▁that ▁Atlas view ▁could ▁not ▁make ▁a ▁claim ▁because ▁it ▁was ▁merely ▁a ▁nom ine e ▁share holder ▁and ▁therefore ▁had ▁no ▁economic ▁interest ▁in ▁Bright view , ▁and ▁therefore ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁" pre jud iced ". ▁They ▁also ▁argued ▁that ▁Atlas view ▁was ▁attempting ▁to ▁claim ▁losses ▁for ▁the ▁dimin ution ▁of ▁the ▁Y ▁shares ' ▁value , ▁as ▁a ▁result ▁of ▁an ▁alleg ed ▁bre ach ▁of ▁director ' s ▁duty , ▁but ▁they ▁should ▁be ▁bar red ▁because ▁this ▁loss ▁was ▁merely ▁reflect ive ▁of ▁the ▁company ' s ▁loss . ▁According ly , ▁they ▁requested ▁that ▁the ▁claim ▁be ▁struck ▁out ▁as ▁an ▁ab use ▁of ▁process , ▁because ▁Atlas view ▁should ▁have ▁sought ▁red ress ▁through ▁oppos ing ▁the ▁initial ▁administration ▁pet ition . ▁ ▁Jud gment ▁Deput y ▁Judge ▁Jonathan ▁Crow ▁held ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁good ▁reason ▁for ▁striking ▁out ▁the ▁pet ition , ▁except ▁that ▁two ▁of ▁the ▁pet ition ers ▁who ▁were ▁not ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁company , ▁nor ▁had ▁shares ▁transferred ▁to ▁them ▁by ▁operation ▁of ▁law , ▁should ▁be ▁removed ▁from ▁the ▁pet ition . ▁He ▁also ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁" inter ests " ▁of