First there was HAMP; then there was HAMP litigation. Plaintiffs across the country have filed class actions against the major servicers based on two theories. The first posits that borrowers are third-party beneficiaries of the Servicer Participation Agreement with Treasury or its agents and entitled to pursue alleged breaches of those Agreements. Courts have almost uniformly held otherwise. The second theory is premised on breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, alleging that by entering into a Trial Period Plan, servicers promised to permanently modify plaintiffs’ loans regardless of whether they qualified for a permanent modification. District courts in Massachusetts have allowed claims based on this theory to proceed past the pleading stage, although at least one of those judges expressed doubt that any such claims are amenable to class treatment. Courts elsewhere have rejected this theory, reasoning that the Trial Period Plan is part of the application process rather than an enforceable contract and that plaintiffs cannot identify any unambiguous promise, much less detrimental reliance on any such promise, as required to pursue a promissory estoppel claim.