Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The New Value Exception To The Absolute Priority Rule In Chapter 11 Reorganizations: What Should The Rule Be? , Linda J. Rusch
The New Value Exception To The Absolute Priority Rule In Chapter 11 Reorganizations: What Should The Rule Be? , Linda J. Rusch
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Home Mortgage Strip Down In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy: A Contextual Approach To Sections 1322(B)(2) And (B)(5), Mark S . Scarberry, Scott M. Reddie
Home Mortgage Strip Down In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy: A Contextual Approach To Sections 1322(B)(2) And (B)(5), Mark S . Scarberry, Scott M. Reddie
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mortgage Wars Episode V - The Empiricist Strikes Back (Or Out): A Reply To Professor Levitin's Response , Mark S. Scarberry
Mortgage Wars Episode V - The Empiricist Strikes Back (Or Out): A Reply To Professor Levitin's Response , Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine Law Review
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 …
Back To The Future With Chapter 13: A Response To Professor Scarberry, Adam J. Levitin
Back To The Future With Chapter 13: A Response To Professor Scarberry, Adam J. Levitin
Pepperdine Law Review
Professor Mark Scarberry has put forth a formidable critique of my empirical study of mortgage market sensitivity to bankruptcy modification risk. As this response shows, however, his critique does not hold up under scrutiny. Professor Scarberry argues that my study design is invalid because, as he reads the current state of the law, cramdown is virtually impossible. Therefore, he contends, we should not expect markets to exhibit sensitivity to cramdown risk, so no policy conclusions can be derived from my finding of market insensitivity. Regrettably, Professor Scarberry overreads the state of the law. The law is in fact unsettled, and …