First, I am going to repeat the refrain given by Moose above. In Bankruptcy, a debtor would be very well counselled to obtain legal representation from a competent lawyer specializing in Bankruptcy.
Second, as a lay, non-attorney pro se litigant, without having researched this point at all, I am disinclined to believe that any discharge of indebtedness in bankruptcy is going to be effective as to any secured creditor which is not explicitly identified within the fling and notified in writing with an opportunity to present a claim, appear and defend.
Identification of a creditor as c/o the SEC seems to me to be very unlikely to cut it.
I would think that the creditor is going to have a very strong due process argument that the indebtedness is not covered by the discharge.
While this might be an interesting additional means of notification, in addition to listing and notifying the Lender of record in the public records (very often the original servicer), the mortgagee of record in the public records (e.g. MERS), and/or the last known servicer (as shown in the most recent "Hello / Goodbye letter", the mortgage investor is almost surely going to seize upon any actual or perceived defect in the identification and listing of the debt and/or notice to defeat any discharge in bankruptcy.
One additional note is in order that also underscores one of the reasons WHY your friend ought to consult a lawyer. Representations made within the Bankruptcy petition might very well come back and haunt a debtor in the foreclosure action itself! The petition might be presented as evidence.
So your friend is walking a legal tightrope. The identification probably needs to be specific enough to give lawful and effective notice of the possible claim, without actually admitting the claim (if you are disputing the ownership and plaintiff's standing).
Again, a LAY, uninformed hunch, without having consulted the law or cases, would be that identification of one or more possible creditors, expressly identifying these using language to show that this entity might be asserting a claim, but without admitting to the debt would seem to be indicated. For example:
Option One Mortgage Corporation, a California corporation
The Lender named in an alleged promissory note and alleged deed of trust dated June 1, 2005, in the amount of $100,000
Deutsche Bank Trust Company, as trustee of the Soundview Trust 2005-OPT2
An entity asserting a claim in a complaint filed in the Florida Circuit Court ... based upon an alleged promissory note and alleged deed of trust dated June 1, 2005, in the amount of $100,000, made out in favor of Option One Mortgage Corporation
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
A purported mortgage servicer claiming to be acting on behalf of a mortgage investor ....
Basically, list all of the reasonably possible claimants under the alleged indebtedness. If there is another claimant unknown to you which hasn't been named in a RESPA "Hello / Goodbye" letter or shown in the records as an assignee of record, I think that your friend would have a very strong argument for valid discharge.
I am not suggesting that naming all of these is necessary. What I am saying is that if you are trying to get a recognition of a discharge in Bankruptcy (which seems unlikely to me unless the mortgage servicer makes an enormous mistake) they are almost certainly going to claim that you named or served the wrong entity. And if you name a single entity in the bankruptcy filing without qualifying, it seems to me that you may be admitting that this entity owns the alleged indebtedness. If you named a single entity while qualifying and asserting that this entity did not own the indebtedness, you are making it easier for the mortgage investor to succeed in asserting that the wrong entity is named (in qualifying YOU would be asserting that this entity doesn't own the indebtedness). By naming each possible entity while adding qualifying language, you would seem to be covering all of the bases.
If you wanted to ALSO name the SEC, I see little harm in that, but doubt that this buys you much of anything.
A special note is in order relating to MERS. Courts in Arkansas, Kansas, and New York have found that MERS is owed no notice at all as "nominee" where the named Lender is served. If you are trying to cover all of the bases, you might want to name MERS in the petition. If you are in one of these states, particularly Arkansas or Kansas (the appellate courts in NY haven't affirmed the trial court's decision yet), you could always just name the named Lender and simply ignore MERS, either relying on these decisions OR hoping to extend the law in other jurisdictions.
You will be in the strongest position where you are able to obtain a final judgment and the appeal period runs. The court is going to be least likely to disturb the final order where arguably adequate Constitutional notice was given. Where notice was Constitutionally deficient, the order is possibly void at least as to the unnamed party.
A final thought (and yet another reason to consult a lawyer) is that prematurely pleading discharge in bankruptcy might be a bad idea IF it is possible to draw the foreclosure out and then plead the bankruptcy later.
Again, this is a legal tightrope and would need to be executed with precision. Orders from most courts are subject to both appeal as well as being set aside for certain periods of time. After these periods run, the orders tend to become final and unappealable. If your friend obtains a questionable discharge in bankruptcy and runs straight to state court with it, it is quite possible that the creditor is going to head straight back to federal Bankruptcy court and get that order set aside. If your friend is able to draw out the state court proceedings through valid, purposeful discovery, filing and determination of preliminary motions, etc., in some jurisdictions the answer may be amended later adding the discharge in bankruptcy. Waiting until after the appeal period runs therefore makes some sense.
CONSULT A LAWYER AND DISCUSS VARIOUS POSSIBLE STRATEGIES WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH BOTH FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAW AND THE LAW OF THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.