On June 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly controversial decision in Stern v. Marshall.1 The Court ruled that bankruptcy judges could not constitutionally enter final rulings in a class of cases that bankruptcy judges and practitioners had long understood to be the proper domain of the bankruptcy courts. Although the decision purported to address only one narrow aspect of bankruptcy judges’ authority, the potential implications of the Court’s ruling are far broader in scope, and have raised fundamental questions concerning bankruptcy judges’ authority to determine matters that bankruptcy courts historically have handled as a matter of course without any question of their authority to do so.
Indeed, since Stern was decided, courts around the country have struggled with the meaning of the decision and its potentially profound implications. The decision also is dramatically impacting the litigation strategies and budgets of debtors, their creditors, their owners, their directors and officers and others who become involved in bankruptcy cases and related litigation, as they struggle to formulate appropriate strategies to deal with Stern‘s ramifications.
This content has been archived.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]
