Stern II, now time for Stern III
Thanks to Stephen for posting the Bellingham/Arkison/Executive Benefits opinion, which I will for simplicity think of as Stern II, as it's the second installment of what will necessarily be a trilogy of Supreme Court cases on the question. True, the bankruptcy courts live to breathe another day, but the consent question remains unanswered. (Actually, that's not really true: the consent question was answered already in the magistrate context; the question is really whether "narrow" Stern has changed the answer.)
When will that next case come? Could be as early as Monday when the orders from this Thursday's conference are announced, inlcuding the Wellness petition pending from CA7. It could be a GVR "in light of" Stern II, in which case the split remains, or it could be Stern III. Watch this space!