        6    (d) The court may authorize the trustee to act as attorney  or accountant for the estate if such authorization is in the  best interest of the estate.  (e) The trustee, with the court’s approval, may employ, for  a specified special purpose, other than to represent the  trustee in conducting the case, an attorney that has  represented the debtor, if in the best interest of the estate,  and if such attorney does not represent or hold any interest  adverse to the debtor or to the estate with respect to the  matter on which such attorney is to be employed.  (f) The trustee may not employ a person that has served as  an examiner in the case.  11 U.S.C. § 327.  Since proposed counsel have represented creditors in these cases, subsection  (c) of § 327 is triggered here. It provides that a person is “not disqualified for employment under this section solely because of such person’s employment by or representation of a creditor, unless there is objection by another creditor or the United States trustee, in which case the court shall disapprove such employment if there is an actual conflict of interest.” 11 U.S.C. § 327(c). Thus, if a creditor or the United States trustee objects to the trustee’s employment of counsel who also represents a creditor, one of the factors the court must determine is whether the employment creates an actual conflict. Obviously, “something more than the mere fact of dual representation must be demonstrated if there is to be disapproval of the engagement. 3Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 327.04[7][a] (Richard Levin and Henry J. Sommer eds. 16th ed.). “Thus, although section 327(c) permits retention by the estate of a professional person whose client is or was a creditor, it does not authorize representation of that creditor vis-à-vis any asserted claims against the estate.”Id.  While § 327(c) prohibits disqualification of professionals based solely on the  professional’s prior representation of or employment by a creditor, “subsection (c) ‘does not preempt the more basic requirements of subsection (a).’”In re Contractor Technology, Ltd., 2006 WL 1492250, at *5 (S.D. Tex. May 30, 2006) (quotingIn re AroChem Corp.,176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999) (citingIn re Interwest Business  17-51570 - #115 File 11/06/20 Enter 11/06/20 11:37:57 Main Document Pg 6 of 15

Document 115