conduct that puts the entire period during which Proskauer did miscellaneous and general corporate work for Interliant into question. Defendants also argue that if the claims based on the transfers in Claims One through Six had been brought as separate actions against the defendants that are corporations or partnerships there would not be a concern about Proskauer’s representation. That is not clear in view of the individual defendants’ interests in the corporate/partnership defendants. But in any event, the several claims have been brought in one action precisely because of the allegation that the officers and directors controlled the corporate and partnership entities in a continuing course of conduct to siphon money from the debtors for their own benefit. The alleged con Y.1981) (<HOLDING>); Baird v. Hilton Hotel Corp., 771 F.Supp. 24,
holding that a twoyear delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of unfair prejudice holding that a fivemonth delay did not render information stale recognizing that a fivemonth delay weighs against the defendant holding that a fivemonth delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was a reasonable explanation for the delay holding that a year delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was no evidence that the motion was inspired by dilatory tactics