It’s not a tort it’s a breach of fiduciary duty. The argument of harm would come into play if there was no disagreement that the money belonged to the director

It’s not a tort it’s a breach of fiduciary duty. The argument of harm would come into play if there was no disagreement that the money belonged to the directors, and the directors had harmed the plaintiffs in a quantifiable amount. Then that harm would justify transfer of assets from directors to plaintiff. But that’s not the argument here. The argument is that the funds did not belong to the directors in the first olace and they are being returned to their actual owner. This is based on the theory that all the money involved was the property of shareholders, and any amount of it that ended up in directors pockets has to be explained and justified. There’s no argument of “harm” being made it’s an argument of misappropriation of what isn’t theirs, and specifically that despite having a very clear legal obligation to act only in the interest of shareholders and not themselves the directors did not meet that obligation.