Laserfiche WebLink
r,- <br />courts generally find such representation acceptable in <br />appropriate circumstances"); cco In re Global Marine. Inc., <br />108 Bankr. 998 (Sankt. S.D. Tex. 1967) (same counsel propex•ly <br />could represent parent and subsidiary corporations in Chapter <br />il); contra, In ze AMDURA Coreoration, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 1F106 <br />(Bankr. D. Colo., July 6, 1990) (apparently ruling that paz~ent <br />and subsidiary corporations in Chapter it must never employ the <br />same counsel, but emphasizing factor present in ease before it of <br />counsel's inability to represent debtors in matters against: major <br />creditor).3 <br />4. In In re Roberts, 75 Bankr. 402 (D. Utah 1987), <br />the United States District judges for this district, sitting <br />anc, ruled that a single law firm could represent as Chapter 11 <br />counsel both a corporation and its 1001 shazeholders, <br />notwithstanding the existence of a debtor/creditor relationship <br />between the corporation and its shareholders. The court held <br />that the Bankruptcy Code did not prohibit such dual <br />representation and that such dual representation did not <br />constitute an actual conflict or the appearance of impropriety. <br />The court further observed that •the •conomie realities o! <br />seeking legal advice must ba considered In many <br />situations independent representation provides few benefitr. to <br />compensate !or significant legal expenses." 75 Bankr. at 406. <br />The court found it significant that "there is a unity of interest <br />3 In other large corporate reorganizations in Colorado <br />prior to the AMDURA ruling, however, corporate affiliates have <br />employed the name counsel, for example in the Storage Teehnoloov <br />and Ltaiser Steel eases. <br />4 <br />