The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), has a narrow holding, but potentially enormous implications for bankruptcy courts and litigation in the federal courts. The authority not just of bankruptcy judges but also of federal magistrate judges is now uncertain.
The case involved a dispute between Anna Nicole Smith and Pierce Marshall over inheritance from the very large estate of J. Howard Marshall. To make a long story short, Smith, the widow of Howard Marshall, filed for bankruptcy in the Central District of California. Pierce Marshall, Howard Marshall’s son, filed a proof of claim, primarily alleging that Smith had defamed him. Smith then filed a counterclaim asserting that Pierce Marshall tortuously interfered with her ability to recover from Howard Marshall’s estate. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of Smith on her counterclaim and awarded her $425 million, which ultimately was reduced to $88 million.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
