Atmospheric dispersion and the implications for phase calibration

The success of any ALMA phase-calibration strategy, which incorporates phase transfer, depends on a good understanding of how the atmospheric path delay changes with frequency (e.g. Holdaway & Pardo 2001). We explore how the wet dispersive path delay varies for realistic atmospheric conditions at the ALMA site using the ATM transmission code. We find the wet dispersive path delay becomes a significant fraction (>5 per cent) of the non-dispersive delay for the high-frequency ALMA bands (>160 GHz, Bands 5 to 10). Additionally, the variation in dispersive path delay across ALMA's 4-GHz contiguous bandwidth is not significant except in Bands 9 and 10. The ratio of dispersive path delay to total column of water vapour does not vary significantly for typical amounts of water vapour, water vapour scale heights and ground pressures above Chajnantor. However, the temperature profile and particularly the ground-level temperature are more important. Given the likely constraints from ALMA's ancillary calibration devices, the uncertainty on the dispersive-path scaling will be around 2 per cent in the worst case and should contribute about 1 per cent overall to the wet path fluctuations at the highest frequencies.Comment: 13 pages, 10 figures, ALMA Memo 59

Taking Bankruptcy Rights Seriously

Perhaps more so than any other area of law affecting individuals of low-to-moderate means, bankruptcy poignantly presents an affordability paradox: the system’s purpose is to relieve individuals from financial distress, yet it simultaneously demands a significant commitment of resources to obtain such relief. To date, no one has undertaken a comprehensive study of the complexities and costs of the litigation burden that Congress has imposed on self-represented debtors who seek a fresh start in bankruptcy. In order to explore the problems inherent in a system that sometimes necessitates litigation as the path for vindicating a debtor’s statutory right to a discharge, this Article focuses on the particular example of debtors who seek to discharge their educational debt (e.g., student loans) through bankruptcy. Such debt may be discharged only if the debtor can establish through a full-blown lawsuit, essentially governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that repaying the debt would impose an undue hardship on the debtor. Using an original dataset of educational-debt dischargeability determinations, this Article reveals that, even when controlling for a variety of factors, including a debtor’s financial characteristics and applicable legal standards, the typical self-represented debtor in such proceedings has only a 28.5% chance of litigation success, which pales in comparison to the 56.2% success rate of a similarly situated debtor who is represented. This finding casts serious doubt on the litigation framework that has been implemented to resolve disputes over a debtor’s discharge rights. After exploring various approaches to reforming the framework, this Article concludes that our reform efforts will signify how committed we are as a society to deliver bankruptcy law’s promise of a fresh start to financially distressed individuals—to wit, whether we are willing to take bankruptcy rights seriously

Setting the Record Straight: A Sur-Reply to Professors Lawless et al.

In this sur-reply, Professor Pardo seeks to clarify the misperceptions and mischaracterizations of his commentary by Professors Lawless et al. and to demonstrate that his arguments not only are grounded in a compelling theory of the operation of the bankruptcy system and an understanding of the First Report’s data, but also offer useful ideas for exploring available empirical data. The sur-reply will identify three of the main substantive points made in his original critique that Professors Lawless et al. misinterpret and/or mischaracterize and will clarify why these original points are valid

Reconceptualizing Present-Value Analysis in Consumer Bankruptcy

During the three decades following the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code, courts and commentators have been vexed by the problem of determining the present value of future payments to creditors proposed in a debtor’s repayment plan. The issue central to this problem has been the discount rate to be applied when conducting present-value analysis. While the Code unmistakably requires the discounting of future payments as part of the process for confirming a repayment plan, the Code does not explicitly specify the rate itself or the manner in which the rate should be calculated. No uniform rule of decision has emerged on this issue. Instead, a multitude of approaches has proliferated within and across circuits. Not even the Supreme Court has been able to bring uniformity to bear on the issue. When given the opportunity to do so in 2004, the Court in Till v. SCS Credit Corp.1 could muster only a plurality opinion. In the wake of Till, disarray over the discount-rate calculus continues to abound. The main goal of this Article is to reconceptualize present-value analysis in consumer bankruptcy. It argues that, as a positive matter, the Bankruptcy Code compels use of a discount rate that solely accounts for expected inflation, but that does not take into account opportunity cost or the risk of nonpayment. The Article also examines whether the doctrinal prescription for the application of an inflation discount rate is normatively desirable. The Article concludes that, not only does an inflation rate comport with generally held theory of bankruptcy law’s procedural and substantive goals, it also optimizes the statutory design of the Bankruptcy Code and the institutional design of the bankruptcy courts

Bankrupted Slaves

Responsible societies reckon with the pernicious and ugly chapters in their histories. Wherever we look, there exist ever-present reminders of how we failed as a society in permitting the enslavement of millions of black men, women, and children during the first century of this nation\u27s history. No corner of society remains unstained. As such, it is incumbent on institutions to confront their involvement in this horrific past to fully comprehend the kaleidoscopic nature of institutional complicity in legitimating and entrenching slavery. Only by doing so can we properly continue the march of progress, finding ways to improve society, not letting the errors of our past define us, yet at the same time never forgetting them. This Article represents a contribution toward this progress, by telling what has been, until now, an untold story about institutional complicity in antebellum slavery-that is, the story of how the federal government in the 1840s became the owner and seller of hundreds, if not thousands, of slaves belonging to financially distressed slaveowners who sought forgiveness of debt through the federal bankruptcy process. Relying on archival court records that have not been systematically analyzed by any published scholarship, this Article recounts how the Bankruptcy Act of 1841 and the domestic slave trade inevitably collided to create the bankruptcy slave trade, focusing on a case study of the Eastern District of Louisiana, home to New Orleans, which was antebellum America\u27s largest slave market. Knowing the story of the black men, women, and children who found themselves subjected to sale through the federal bankruptcy process is a crucial step toward recognizing how yet another aspect of our legal system-one that has brought in its modern incarnation financial relief to millions upon millions of debtors-had deep roots in antebellum slavery