of Major Funding Corp., 109 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir.1997) (discussing the duties under Code § 1103); In re Lowry Graphics, Inc., 86 B.R. 74, 76 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1988) (discussing duties under Code § 1106); In re Schepps Food Stores, Inc., 160 B.R. 792, 797 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1993) (discussing duties under Code §§ 1106, 1107, and 1108). 80 . The court of course recognizes that for a committee, for example, the interests of its constituents, to which it owes its primary duties, may not always be perfectly congruent with what is best for the estate. Likewise, as has certainly been true in the case at bar, estates of debtors controlled by the same management may have divergent interests. These problems need not be addressed, however, in the present context. 81 . See Nucentrix, 314 B.R. at 578 (<HOLDING>). 82 . Prior to BAPCPA, the section was
holding that a professional may petition a bankruptcy court for a fee enhancement or bonus if its work has been of superior qualily holding that a professional owes no duty to third persons unless the professional had actual knowledge that those persons would rely on his rendering of professional services holding that the bankruptcy court has the inherent power to award sanctions for badfaith conduct in a bankruptcy court proceeding holding that where a contract for legal services fails to expressly provide for the amount of the fee a reasonable fee is implied holding that petitioner had failed to exhaust alternative remedies for review of his fee agreement because the ssa notified petitioner he could obtain his fee by filing a fee petition