Quote Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy View Post
Bob Sedler's comment, just further down in the article, is probably more correct. I think John was misquoted when it makes it sound like the bankruptcy court [[which is not an Article III Court) "has priority" over a US District Court. I certainly does not. Bob is a great scholar and one of the gems of Wayne State's Law School.

On your first point, you're unquestionably right--the bankruptcy was expedited to reduce the risk of losing any of these cases [[including the state court one, which really pushed them over the edge).

Thank you for your well thought out and reasoned response.
I agree, that it appears that he was misquoted. In fact, the Supreme Court recently curtailed the powers of the US Bankruptcy court [[non article III court) in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 [[2011). In fact, the Court held that "when a suit is made of ‘the stuff of the traditional actions at common law tried by the courts at Westminster in 1789,’ and is brought within the bounds of federal jurisdiction, the responsibility for deciding that suit rests with Article III judges in Article III Courts."

Following that logic, the claims [[and counterclaims) being brought against PA 436 will most likely be stayed pending the bankruptcy lawsuit and will have to be vetted in either state court or in a US District Court [[i.e., Article III court).