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.

Abstract: How did mortgage risk pricing for securitized loans change during the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis? Using a database from a major American bank that serves as trustee for private-label securitized loans, this paper shows that the decline in underwriting standards was accompanied by a decline in credit spreads on mortgages, after adjusting for loan/borrower characteristics. Observable information, including FICO and LTV, became less influential on mortgage risk pricing over time during the housing bubble.

Summary: After direct appeal to the 4th Circuit was declined, the district court affirmed the opinion of the bankruptcy court in Hurlburt that the anti-deficiency statute of N.C.G.S. § 45-21.28 does not allow debtors to circumvent the anti-modification provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) and (c)(2), with Witt v. United Companies Lending Corp. (In Re Witt), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir.

Summary: Between March 7, 2017, and November 28, 2017, Mr. Stockwell filed first a Chapter 13 and then three Chapter 7 cases, with the fourth case being filed while the third was still pending. (The dismissal of the third case had been set aside as it had been automatically dismissed due to the failure to file documents under 11 U.S.C. § 521(I) while the Bankruptcy Administrator’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.) Mr. Stockwell’s cases were filed with the apparent intent of holding off a foreclosure by Ocwen, as it was the only creditor listed in any of his cases.

Summary: In a Chapter 11 case, Summitbridge held a secured (but under secured) claim, which was satisfied, pursuant to the confirmation order, by tender of the collateral. Summitbridge then filed an additional unsecured, nonpriority claim for it attorneys fees, pursuant to its promissory note, in the amount of 15% of the outstanding indebtness, totaling more than $300,000.