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).
Bookmarks