In Re Johore Investment Company (USA) Inc.

41 B.R. 318, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5319
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii
DecidedJuly 26, 1984
Docket19-00115
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 41 B.R. 318 (In Re Johore Investment Company (USA) Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Johore Investment Company (USA) Inc., 41 B.R. 318, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5319 (Haw. 1984).

Opinion

ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO EMPLOY SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE ON A CONTINGENCY FEE BASIS

JON J. CHINEN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Johore Investment Company (U.S.A.) Inc., (“Debtor”) requests permission to employ the law offices of Schutter, Pavey, and Cayetano (“SPC”) as special counsel in an action against Territorial Savings and Loan Association (“TSL”), and Territorial Enterprises, Inc. (“TEI”), on a contingency fee basis.

SPC currently represent Mr. Tunku Osman Ahmad in both the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii and in the United States District Court of Honolulu for fraud and misrepresentation against TSL and TEI. Mr. Ahmad is the sole shareholder of Toa, Inc., which owns fifty per cent (50%) of the shares of Debtor.

Debtor also intends to sue TSL and TEI for fraud and misrepresentation. In addition, Debtor also has potential claims against Mr. Ahmad. If Debtor had been overcharged and defrauded, it may have claims against any “insiders”, including Mr. Ahmad. Thus, Debtor’s attorney has a duty to investigate the past activities of Debtor which may involve some or all of the “insiders”.

11 U.S.C. § 327 prohibits the employment of any professional person who holds or represents an interest adverse to the estate or one who is not a disinterested person. There is clearly a conflict of interest between Mr. Ahmad and the Debtor.

Thus, the application to employ SPC as special counsel for Debtor on a contingency fee basis is hereby denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of F & C Intern., Inc.
159 B.R. 220 (S.D. Ohio, 1993)
In re F & C International, Inc.
159 B.R. 220 (S.D. Ohio, 1993)
In Re American Avia Associates-SEA
150 B.R. 24 (S.D. Texas, 1992)
In Re Smartt
132 B.R. 765 (D. Colorado, 1990)
In Re Roberts
46 B.R. 815 (D. Utah, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 B.R. 318, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johore-investment-company-usa-inc-hib-1984.