The argument is hair splitting. Claim splitting is an aspect of the law of preclusion. Next comes the contention that Horwitz and Wesco may go on litigating against the Grays, Alloy's managers and principal investors, even if Alloy is entitled to the benefit of the 1986 order. Horwitz, as Wesco's CEO and sole shareholder, is assuredly in privity with Wesco. Plaintiffs quibble with the district court's disposition of this sub- ject but have no real ground for doubting its propriety.
Plaintiffs lack any substantial basis to doubt the district court's impartiality.
That does not create an actual conflict of interest, see 28 U.S.C. sec. The treatise we cited gives some examples, of which the closest is lack of notice of the first proceeding. But it may have been misled by that notice into believing that any dismissal would be without prejudice. Wesco and Horwitz had lit- tle to fear from such an order, as they already had this separate suit under way. So Wesco did not send a representative.