Is there any case law where a plaintiff is entitled to damages for "self-dealing"?

Plaintiffs offer three arguments in response. First, they contend that they presented evidence that Massman engaged in "self-dealing" because he personally benefitted from the fractional interest-based distribution and because he misallocated the legal costs of the 2009 lawsuit to the limited partners having a positive capital account balance. But these claims of self-dealing do not state the violation of an independent tort duty. Indeed, they have meaning (and are actionable) only by reference to the Agreement. Plaintiffs' reliance on Bardis v. Oates (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1 is unhelpful because that case did not pass on the propriety of punitive damages. (Id. at p. 16.) Nor is

Page 13