Both the corporate debtor and its related individuals filed petitions in bankruptcy, and separate counsel was appointed to represent them. Eventually, the two bankruptcy cases were consolidated for administrative purposes, and counsel for the individual debtors began acting as counsel for the corporation, without having been appointed to do so. Subsequently, counsel filed a motion to appoint him as counsel for the corporate debtor, nunc pro tunc to the date its petition had been filed. The court denied the motion, concluding that counsel was not disinterested and had failed to make full and adequate disclosure in his application. The court restated the law regarding nunc pro tunc motions, noting the appropriate use of such a motion is to correct a mistake or error that actually occurred rather than to change the record to reflect something that did not occur or to cure the omissions of counsel.