On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the bankruptcy jurisdiction statute to be unconstitutional to the extent that it permitted bankruptcy courts to hear and decide an estate’s counterclaims against a creditor’s claims, unless resolution of the former was necessary to a disposition of the latter. That counterclaims may be compulsory or involve some common facts is not enough to confer jurisdiction on a bankruptcy court to issue a final order on the counterclaim.

Despite its self-proclaimed limitations, Stern has been cited in a host of contexts and has created an overall cloud of uncertainty regarding a bankruptcy court’s constitutional power to enter final judgment. Even though courts interpreting Stern have yielded varying approaches to the jurisdictional question, a number of interesting trends have emerged.

Adam Lewis, Senior Counsel at Morrison & Foerster, along with Alexandra Steinberg Barrage and Melissa Hager, each Of Counsel at Morrison & Foerster, will provide bankruptcy litigators with a review of Stern, including a synthesis of “best practices.”

The panel will also address the following questions:

• What strategic considerations bear on whether to file a proof of claim?
• How is bankruptcy litigation strategy affected by Stern?
• How are courts dealing with Stern issues in Lehman, Extended Stay, and other cases?