Although the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Stern v. Marshallwas described in the majority opinion as being narrow and of limited application, noting that “we do not think [that] the removal of counterclaims such as [the debtor’s] from core bankruptcy jurisdiction meaningfully changes the division of labor in the current statute,”1 the dissent in Stern clearly foreshadowed the confusion and unintended consequences of the decision, as well as the anticipated eagerness of practitioners to test the boundaries of bankruptcy court jurisdiction post-Stern. Therefore, the bench and bar alike were hopeful when the Court granted certiorari in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency Inc.),2 as they eagerly expected additional guidance from the Court on the issues of bankruptcy court jurisdiction that have been confounding both lawyers and judges since Stern was decided.