Opinion ID: 504391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: 39 We are mindful that the result may seem harsh in this case. In Arkansas, we explained our formulation of the extraordinary circumstances standard by reference to the legislative history and the important policies at stake. We noted that without such a standard, the bankruptcy court may be overly inclined to grant such approval influenced by claims of hardship due to work already performed. 798 F.2d at 649. We stated that, [i]f retroactive approval were freely granted, it would subvert the prophylactic purpose underlying the statutory requirement of prior approval. Id. Our holding in this case reiterates and reinforces that bright-line position. 40 The bankruptcy court did not have the benefit of Arkansas when it gave its nunc pro tunc approval, and hence did not apply the appropriate legal standard. The district court also erred as a matter of law because it misapplied the Arkansas factors. For the reasons set forth above, we will reverse the order of the district court affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting nunc pro tunc approval of Simon's employment and remand to the district court for the entry of an appropriate order consistent with this opinion.