Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> with each other if the debtor is allowed to intervene in the <br /> state court action. As such, it would not be appropriate for <br /> Delaney's law firm to represent the debtor considering the debtor <br /> is potentially an adverse party to Delaney. <br /> This same analysis holds true for Delaney & Balcomb's <br /> representation of the debtor in administrative and other proceed- <br /> ings concerning the debtor's reclamation obligation. At this <br /> point, Delaney's interest is to see that he is not held person- <br /> ally liable for reclamation. Accordingly, his interests are ad- <br /> verse to that of the debtor. Thus, the law firm to which Delaney <br /> is inextricably connected should not be representing the debtor <br /> in any proceeding concerning the debtor's reclamation obligation. <br /> 6. For these reasons, representation of the debtor by <br /> Delaney & Balcomb would not be in the best interest of the debt- <br /> or, and therefore, not in the best interests of the estate. As <br /> to the personal liability law suit, should intervention be al- <br /> lowed by the state district court, the interests of the estate <br /> particularly would not be served. The Division's claim in bank- <br /> ruptcy is based on the debtor's reclamation obligation. However, <br /> the debtor's proposed amended liquidation plan does not cover all <br /> of the expenses required for complete reclamation. Thus, the <br /> debtor has an interest in the Division pursuing means other than <br /> claiming against the estate to fulfill the goal of reclamation. <br /> The Division's action potentially makes available, or keeps <br /> -4-. <br />