Abstract: This Article examines the tendency of current American bankruptcy law to maintain the social and economic status of middle- and upper-class debtors while doing much less to assist poorer debtors and non-debtors. In doing so, it examines and categorizes various aspects of statutory and case law that allow debtors to preserve their prior economic status. After reconstructing and rebutting the normative arguments offered in defense of these provisions, it suggests a proposal for reforming bankruptcy law to emphasize goals other than the maintenance of economic status.

Abstract: A drawback of student loans is that a debtor must show “undue hardship” to discharge them in bankruptcy. An advantage of student loans is that most of them may be repaid using income-driven repayment (“IDR”) plans, under which the debtor can satisfy the obligation by paying a share of income over a specified time, even if the payments do not reduce the loan balance to zero. This Article addresses how the availability of IDR should affect the analysis of undue hardship in student-loan bankruptcy.

Summary: Charles Loncon, an attorney licensed to practice in Georgia, but not North Carolina, filed a Notice of Appearance to represent Carolina Home Solutions ("CHS"), a corporation, and Charles Boudreau, an individual. The Superior Court initially allowed Loncon to appear at a scheduling conference, but admonished him that he would have to obtain pro hac vice admission going forward and that CHS, as a corporation, could not represent itself pro se.

Abstract: Among consumers who file for bankruptcy, African Americans file Chapter 13 petitions at substantially higher rates than other racial groups. Some have hypothesized that the difference is attributable to discrimination by attorneys. We show that the difference may be attributable, in substantial part, to a selection effect: Among distressed consumers, African Americans have longer commutes to work, rely more heavily on cars for the commute, and therefore have greater demand for a bankruptcy process (Chapter 13) that allows them to retain their cars.

Preliminary Comment: This is a study commissioned by the J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Institute, so not a bunch of wooly-headed, bleeding heart academics. That even it finds tremendous utility in loan modification programs, should not be taken lightly. Abstract: In the aftermath of the Great Recession, various mortgage modification programs were introduced to help homeowners struggling to make their monthly mortgage payments remain in their homes.

Abstract: This Article argues that consistent with the Code’s text and policy, injunctions or other forms of equitable relief should be presumptively treated as “claims,” even if nonbankruptcy law does not permit the enjoined party to satisfy the injunction by the payment of money. This presumption, however, should be rebuttable. No categorical rule can determine when equitable remedies should be monetized and discharged.

Abstract: Exploiting the within-district random assignment of bankruptcy cases to judges, we provide new evidence on the effects of judges' on-the-bench experience on large public corporate Chapter 11 outcomes. We find that cases assigned to more experienced judges spend less time in bankruptcy, are more likely to be reorganized rather than liquidated, but are not more likely to refile for bankruptcy after emergence.

Abstract: The propriety and requisites for the settlement of denial of discharge proceedings, initiated under § 727 of the Bankruptcy Code, has long been a subject of controversy in the federal judiciary. One series of decisions prohibits any settlement that would include the debtor’s payment of settlement funds or giving other value. At the other end of the spectrum, various courts have approved such settlements, even permitting direct payment to the prosecuting creditor under appropriate circumstances.

Summary: Ralph Janvey, as the receiver in a Ponzi scheme litigation against Stanford Financial Group (“SFG”), sought and, following trial, obtained a judgment against Peter Romero for $1.275 million related to fees and profits Romero had earned from SFG. Romero then filed Chapter 7 and Janvey sought dismissal for cause pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(a).

Summary: Mr. Bass filed his 2012 federal tax return electronically, but unintentionally failed to file his state return. In July 2016, the North Carolina Department of Revenue (“NCDOR”) sent Mr. Bass a Notice of Intent to Assess for Failure to File North Carolina Return (“the Notice”) and then Mr. Bass filed his 2012 return on August 4, 2016, contending a refund was due. The NCDOR denied the refund, as the return was beyond the 3-year statute of limitations. Mr.