  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
*This outline is adapted from Chapter 27, Ethical Responsibilities,
Norton Bankruptcy Law & Practice 2d (Thomson-West 2005)
Products, Inc., 93 B.R. 228, 235 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1988); In re Sixth Ave. Car Care Center, 81 B.R. 628, 632 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1988).
146Model Rule 1.13; In re United Utensils Corp., 141 B.R. 306 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1992); In re WPMK, Inc., 42 B.R. 157, 162 (Bankr. D. Haw. 1984); Matter of King Resources Co., 20 B.R. 191 (D. Colo. 1982).
147Id.; Model Rule 1.13(b); In re Angelika Films 57th Inc., 227 B.R. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)(interests of principal placed before entity); In re Tezlaff, 31 B.R. 560 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1983) (court recognizes difficult to draw line between individual and closely held corporation); In re Kendavis Industries International, Inc., 91 B.R. 742 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1988); see also In re Downtown Investment Club III, 89 B.R. 59 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1988)(plan modification benefitting general partner at expense of other creditors established conflict in representing general partner and partnership); In re McNar, Inc., 116 B.R. 746 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1990) (attorney improperly took direction only from one shareholder, when other shareholder opposed to actions). 148Matter of Roger J. Au & Son, Inc., 65 B.R. 322, 33435 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1984); In re Central Ice Cream Co., 59 B.R. 476, 48990 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985).
149U.P.A. § 15; In re W.F. Development Corp., 905 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1990)(always conflict between general and limited partner); In re Hathaway Ranch Partnership, 116 B.R. 208 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1990); In re Kuykendahl Place Assoc., Ltd., 112 B.R. 847 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1989); In re 765 Associates, 14 B.R. at 449, 45051 (Bankr. D. Haw. 1981)(divided loyalty evidenced by partnership debtor's attorney who counselled partners on "claims" v. "interests"); In re McKinney Ranch Associates, 62 B.R. 249 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1986) (counsel disqualified from representing limited partnership debtor while representing general partners, but authorized to represent debtor after withdrawing from partner representation).
150In re Jones & McClain, LLP, 271 B.R. 473 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2001)(counsel for entity cannot file involuntary petition at request of one partner); Matter of Barton & Ludwig, 9 B.R. 222 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1981); see also In re Entertainment, Inc., 225 B.R. 412 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1998)(animosity between shareholder factions).
151See, e.g., In re Middleton Arms, Limited Partnership, 934 F.2d 723 (6th Cir. 1991)(strict construction of disinterestedness; court cannot use § 105 powers to disregard that criterion); In re W.F. Development Corp., 905 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 111 S.Ct. 1311 (1991)(no hearing necessary as to general partner/limited partner, since always a conflict); In re Pierce, 809 F.2d 1356 (8th Cir. 1987) (only Congress, not courts, can change disinterestedness requirements); In re Ginco, Inc., 105 B.R. 620 (D. Colo. 1988); In re Amdura Corp., 121 B.R. 862 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1990)(following Ginco); In re Kendavis Industries International, Inc., 91 B.R. 742 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1988); In re Glenn Electric Sales Corp., 99
152In re R&R Associates of Hampton, 402 F.3d 257 (1st Cir. 2005) (representation of partnership and general partners almost always a conflict of interest, and certainly on facts of case); In re Interwest Business Equipment, Inc., 23 F.3d 311 (10th Cir. 1994); In re Big Mac Marine, Inc., 326 B.R. 150 (8th Cir.
BAP 2005); In re Coal River Resources, Inc., 321 B.R. 184, 188-89 (W.D. Va. 2005); In re Git-N-Go, Inc., 321 B.R. 54 (Bankr. N.D. Okl. 2004); In re RKC Development Corp., 205 B.R. 869 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1997); In re First Ambulance Center of Tennessee, Inc., 181 B.R. 323 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1995); In re Green Street, 132 B.R. 460 (Bankr. D. Utah 1991)(inter-estate claims created per se conflict); In re ChouChen Chemicals, Inc., 31 B.R. 842 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1983) (cannot represent both DIP corporation
