Estate Professionals Can Be Compensated for Services Performed Before Entry of a Retention Order, Even Without Nunc Pro Tunc Orders

Bankruptcy professionals in the Eastern District of New York should be relieved by Judge Grossman's recent decision holding that although nunc pro tunc orders approving a professional's retention are now considered "inappropriate" in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S.Ct. 696 (2020), there is nothing in the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules, or applicable case law preventing an award of compensation before a retention order is entered. In re Benitez, 19-70230 (REG), 2020 WL 1272258 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2020). Note that estate professionals must at some point be retained, and as mentioned below, sooner rather than later remains best practice.

Nunc Pro Tunc Orders Were a Common Practice In Bankruptcy

In bankruptcy matters, it was common practice to seek authority to retain professionals nunc pro tunc to the date the case was filed. This is because estate professionals may not be compensated under Bankruptcy Code Section 330 unless they are retained under Bankruptcy Code Section 327, which until recently was generally interpreted to mean that estate professionals could not be compensated for work performed prior the entry of (or the effective date of) a retention order. The inevitable delay in a bankruptcy case of obtaining entry of such retention orders, notwithstanding that estate professionals render essential services from day one, seemingly necessitated entry of nunc pro tunc orders.

The Supreme Court's Holding in Acevedo Effectively Eliminated Nunc Pro Tunc Retention Orders

On Feb. 24, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held, among other things, that "[f]ederal courts may issue nunc pro tunc orders, or 'now for then' orders, … to 'reflect[] the reality' of what has already occurred. … 'Such a decree presupposes a decree allowed, or ordered, but not yet entered, through inadvertence of the court.' … Put colorfully, '[n]unc pro tunc orders are not some Orwellian vehicle for revisionist history — creating 'facts' that never occurred in fact.' … Put plainly, the court 'cannot make the record what it is not.'" Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S.Ct. 696, 701 (2020).