Mortgage Wars Episode V - The Empiricist Strikes Back (or Out): A Reply to Professor Levitin\u27s Response

Professor Adam Levitin has responded to my recent symposium article critiquing proposed congressional legislation that would allow modification (including strip down) of home mortgages in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. A portion of my Critique criticized his empirical studies concerning the likely effect of the proposed legislation on mortgage interest rates and availability, and also criticized the arguments he has made in support of the proposed legislation. The Critique did note, however, that the insight involved in conceiving of such empirical studies was impressive. Surprisingly, Professor Levitin’s Response fails to deal with the substantial case authority discussed in my Critique. He treats the Critique’s case authority on a critical question as if it consisted only of one relatively recent Ninth Circuit case and supposed dicta from an “old” Second Circuit case. But the Critique in fact relies on about twenty cases that deal with the question; the only supposedly contrary case authority he discusses in his Response turns out to be one of the cases cited in my Critique and not to be contrary at all. The case authority shows that the main defense put forward in his Response - that the mortgage modifications that would be permitted under the proposed legislation are similar to those permitted before the Supreme Court’s 1993 Nobelman decision and similar to those currently permitted where the collateral is not the debtor’s principal residence - is simply untenable. It is also surprising that the entire weight of his defense of the empirical studies rests (A) on a very likely mistaken view of the law - that the law permits Chapter 13 debtors to use a novel, flawed approach in modifying secured claims under current law - and (B) on two remarkably bold and implausible assertions regarding how the market data he collected supposedly should have reflected the risk that debtors might use that novel, flawed approach, even though his data was collected before anyone had suggested that debtors might even try to do so. In addition, one of Professor Levitin’s assertions, if accepted, would fatally undermine the design of a key part of his empirical studies. The article notes in conclusion that law professors and others who have taken divergent positions on the wisdom of the congressional proposals might yet be able to agree on a common-sense middle ground; there is no need to consider those who disagree with us as having been seduced by the Dark Side

A Critique of Congressional Proposals to Permit Modification of Home Mortgages in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

Proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Code permitting strip down of under secured home mortgages to the court-determined value of the homes and other modifications of home mortgages in Chapter 13 would substantially alter the risk characteristics of home mortgages, with likely substantial effects on future mortgage interest rates and future mortgage availability. Thus, the future societal cost of such a change in the law likely would be large. This article explains and supports that thesis, primarily on the ground that the proposed changes would leave mortgage holders with all of the future downside risk in the real property market while denying them the benefit of future appreciation. This article also explains why a common argument made in favor of allowing strip down as a matter of fairness is simply mistaken; enactment of the proposed amendments would not treat home mortgages the same as other secured debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but in fact would treat home mortgages much less favorably than other secured debt. Home mortgages would be the only secured debts that could be stripped down and paid off at a court-determined interest rate, with monthly payments lower than those required by the credit contract, over a period of up to nearly forty years, rather than the no-more-than-five year period that would still apply to other secured debts. Additionally, the article provides a brief critique of Professor Adam J. Levitin\u27s empirical studies. Even though serious flaws in his empirical studies have been pointed out, Professor Levitin continues to claim in congressional testimony that permitting bankruptcy modification is unlikely to result in higher mortgage costs or lower mortgage credit availability. Supporters of strip down in Congress continue to rely heavily on Professor Levitin’s studies as showing that the proposed changes in the law would not substantially affect mortgage interest rates or mortgage availability. Unfortunately, Professor Levitin\u27s empirical studies, though thoughtful and creative in their design, rely on incorrect understandings of current and past bankruptcy law and of the proposed legislation. They, in effect, compare apples with oranges - or perhaps a bumper crop of apples with a frost-ravaged crop of oranges - by comparing the effects of the kind of strip down that would be widely available under the legislation now before Congress, with the effects of the very different kinds of strip down that, in limited circumstances, are currently available or were at one time available. His studies also fail to take into account the very different incentives that the proposed legislation would create were it to be enacted, both in terms of encouraging debtors with large negative equity to file Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions and encouraging Chapter 13 debtors to argue for a low value for their homes rather than to report an inflated value. The empirical studies thus do not provide a solid foundation for the making of public policy. In addition, adoption of the proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Code would cause somewhat perverse results. Strip down provides the greatest benefit to debtors who have the greatest amount of negative equity. Homeowners who made the lowest down payments, paid the most inflated prices for their homes, and refinanced to take equity out of their homes for purposes of consumption thus would receive the greatest benefits - benefits that would include, in essence, a free option on future appreciation and that would not be well calibrated to the homeowners\u27 financial need - while homeowners who made large down payments, were careful not to pay inflated prices, and did not use their home equity to finance consumption would receive the least benefits. These perverse results are not only undesirable in and of themselves from a public policy moral hazard perspective. They also may cause resentment among those persons who could not benefit from them or who would receiv

ASPM and microcephalin expression in epithelial ovarian cancer correlates with tumour grade and survival

BACKGROUND: The clinico-pathological and molecular heterogeneity of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) complicates its early diagnosis and successful treatment. Highly aneuploid tumours and the presence of ascitic fluids are hallmarks of EOC. Two microcephalyassociated proteins, abnormal spindle-like microcephaly-associated protein (ASPM) and microcephalin, are involved in mitosis and DNA damage repair. Their expression is deregulated at the RNA level in EOC. Here, ASPM and microcephalin protein expression in primary cultures established from the ascites of patients with EOC was determined and correlated with clinical data to assess their suitability as biomarkers. METHODS: Five established ovarian cancer cell lines, cells derived from two benign ovarian ascites samples and 40 primary cultures of EOC derived from ovarian ascites samples were analysed by protein slot blotting and/or immunofluorescence to determine ASPM and microcephalin protein levels and their cellular localisation. Results were correlated with clinico-pathological data. RESULTS: A statistically significant correlation was identified for ASPM localisation and tumour grade, with high levels of cytoplasmic ASPM correlating with grade 1 tumours. Conversely, cytoplasmic microcephalin was only identified in high-grade tumours. Furthermore, low levels of nuclear microcephalin correlated with reduced patient survival. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that ASPM and microcephalin have the potential to be biomarkers in ovarian cance

Search for Low Delta V Earth-To-Moon Trajectories

A search for low Δ V Earth-to-Moon trajectories has been initiated. Numerical integration of the equations of motion from the circular restricted three-body problem has resulted in the computation of a trajectory that saves more than 100 m/s over a Hohmann transfer, although the flight time is almost ten months. The approach used involves the computation of two trajectory \u27legs\u27: first, a trajectory from low Earth orbit to the L1 libration point of the Earth-Moon system, and second, a trajectory from L1 to an orbit about the Moon. Multiple orbits about Earth using lunar perturbations facilitates the transfer to L1. Similarly, the L1 to Moon leg uses the perturbation from the Earth to achieve a low orbit about the Moon. Small maneuvers are used in both legs to control the orbital period so the third body perturbations can be used advantageously