Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Bankruptcy Law; Stern v. Marshall; Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison; Wellness International Network; Ltd. V. Sharif; Supreme Court; Federal Bankruptcy Rule 7012(b); Balancing test; Core claims and non-core claims; Jurisdiction; Competency; Implied consent; Federal Judgeship Act of 1984; Non-Article III Courts; Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.; Statutory authority; Counterclaims; Adjuncts of district courts; Stern Claim; Stern Gap; Intermediary claims; Knowing and voluntary; Legislative history; Private or Public rights
Articles 1 - 1 of 1
Full-Text Articles in Law
Understanding Wellness International Network, Ltd. V. Sharif: The Problems With Allowing Parties To Impliedly Consent To Bankruptcy Court Adjudication Of Stern Claims, Elizabeth Jackson
Understanding Wellness International Network, Ltd. V. Sharif: The Problems With Allowing Parties To Impliedly Consent To Bankruptcy Court Adjudication Of Stern Claims, Elizabeth Jackson
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
The 2011 Supreme Court case Stern v. Marshall defined which claims bankruptcy courts had the authority to adjudicate, but it’s complicated holding left lower courts perplexed. Specifically, the Stern decision created “Stern claims”—claims that bankruptcy courts have the statutory, but not the constitutional, authority to adjudicate. Subsequent cases, such as Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison and Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, have grappled with whether Stern claims should be treated as “core” claims, which bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments on, or “non-core” claims, which bankruptcy courts can only enter final judgments on if the litigating parties consent. …