In the Stern v. Marshall case discussed in the text, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a counterclaim for tortuous interference with an expected gift, filed in response to a bankruptcy claim for defamation, was a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. And if it was a core matter subject, did the authority conferred upon the bankruptcy court violate Article III of

Question

the U.S. Constitution? How did the Court rule?
a. The Court ruled that the tortuous interference counterclaim was a core proceeding but that the bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on the claim.
b. The Court ruled that the tortuous interference counterclaim was a core proceeding and that the bankruptcy court had the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on the claim.
c. The Court ruled that the tortuous interference counterclaim was not a core proceeding and that the bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on the claim.
d. The Court ruled that the tortuous interference counterclaim was a core proceeding in part and that the bankruptcy court had the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on portions of the claim.

Answer 1

a