What I meant is that Shaprio can't simultaneously represent company and shareholders. Should have used the word "both" to be more clear.
I am not an attorney, but it would seem to me that if both the company and the shareholders had a common party they were bring a lawsuit against there would be no conflict of interest - and in fact it would benefit both the company and the shareholders if the same attorney represented them both. I believe an attorney is only required to step back when there is a conflict of interest or t=representing one would render the attorney unable to represent the other to the best of his ability.