Opinion ID: 53030
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: District Court’s Order of March 26, 2006

Text: The district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order denying in part and granting in part the Corporations’ motion to enroll Cary J. Deaton (“Deaton”) as counsel. Namer retained Deaton to represent the Corporations, pursuant to the court’s August 26, 2005 order, allowing representation of shareholders, but not of corporate entities under receivership. The Receiver opposed the motion, arguing that he alone was granted full power by the district court to control, manage, and liquidate the Corporations’ assets and that this included the power to retain counsel. The magistrate judge denied Deaton’s enrollment as counsel for all of the Corporations except for National Business Consultants, Inc., the only entity not placed under receivership. Namer appeals this decision and argues that the Corporations are entitled to independent legal representation and that neither the Receiver nor his attorney can provide legal counsel for the Corporations without a violation of the entities’ due process rights. Receivers are bound by fiduciary obligations to the court appointing them and to the estates they serve. Namer ignores the fact that the judgment against him and the Corporations as cojudgment debtors is final. The litigation on the merits has long been concluded and all that is left is 20 No. 06-30528 the liquidation of assets to satisfy the judgment. Therefore, no due process rights are implicated and, further, Namer has not demonstrated any prejudice to the Corporations by the Receiver’s actions. We find that the district court did not err in its findings of March 26, 2006.