{"title":"Introduction to the Research Handbook on Corporate Bankruptcy Law","authors":"B. Adler","doi":"10.4337/9781781007884.00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"More than thirty years ago, Thomas Jackson wrote The Logic and Limits of Bankruptcy Law, which describes bankruptcy as the implementation of a hypothetical bargain among creditors. Under the terms of such a bargain, bankruptcy’s automatic stay on each creditor’s individual collection rights prohibits a potentially destructive grab race and allows for a collectivized proceeding that can maintain a debtor’s going-concern value for the benefits of the creditors as a group. Among both academics and practitioners, Jackson’s hypothetical bargain has become the dominant paradigm in assessing bankruptcy, a true feat for a scholarly work. Much has changed since Jackson wrote his classic treatise, particularly in the world of large-firm corporate bankruptcy, which is the primary focus of this handbook. Creditors have taken control of the corporate reorganization process, previously the domain of debtor management (the “debtor in possession” or “DIP”). Creditor control has been solidified over time by an expanded use of secured credit and prebankruptcy contractual arrangements that allow principal creditors to speak with a single voice in the bankruptcy process. To the extent honored by the bankruptcy courts, such coordination among principal creditors largely replaces Jackson’s hypothetical creditors’ bargain with an actual bargain. That actual bargain has important consequences for the bankruptcy process including a financial stranglehold that restricts a bankruptcy court’s ability to have the process fully honor the entitlement of creditors not part of the coalition. Full adherence to entitlement—known in some contexts as “absolute priority”—has, thus, become difficult to achieve for new reasons. Now, it is dominant creditors who may manage bankruptcy for their own advantage while in the past it was the debtor’s shareholders who, despite holding options that were out of the money, had their managers run the bankruptcy process toward achieving some return to equity. Another consequence of principal creditor coordination in bankruptcy is that large-firm debtors are today, more than in the past, sold in bankruptcy. Fewer firms now undergo traditional reorganization, with new claims and interests issued against the debtor’s assets. In principle, this","PeriodicalId":324984,"journal":{"name":"Research Handbook on Corporate Bankruptcy Law","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Handbook on Corporate Bankruptcy Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781007884.00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
More than thirty years ago, Thomas Jackson wrote The Logic and Limits of Bankruptcy Law, which describes bankruptcy as the implementation of a hypothetical bargain among creditors. Under the terms of such a bargain, bankruptcy’s automatic stay on each creditor’s individual collection rights prohibits a potentially destructive grab race and allows for a collectivized proceeding that can maintain a debtor’s going-concern value for the benefits of the creditors as a group. Among both academics and practitioners, Jackson’s hypothetical bargain has become the dominant paradigm in assessing bankruptcy, a true feat for a scholarly work. Much has changed since Jackson wrote his classic treatise, particularly in the world of large-firm corporate bankruptcy, which is the primary focus of this handbook. Creditors have taken control of the corporate reorganization process, previously the domain of debtor management (the “debtor in possession” or “DIP”). Creditor control has been solidified over time by an expanded use of secured credit and prebankruptcy contractual arrangements that allow principal creditors to speak with a single voice in the bankruptcy process. To the extent honored by the bankruptcy courts, such coordination among principal creditors largely replaces Jackson’s hypothetical creditors’ bargain with an actual bargain. That actual bargain has important consequences for the bankruptcy process including a financial stranglehold that restricts a bankruptcy court’s ability to have the process fully honor the entitlement of creditors not part of the coalition. Full adherence to entitlement—known in some contexts as “absolute priority”—has, thus, become difficult to achieve for new reasons. Now, it is dominant creditors who may manage bankruptcy for their own advantage while in the past it was the debtor’s shareholders who, despite holding options that were out of the money, had their managers run the bankruptcy process toward achieving some return to equity. Another consequence of principal creditor coordination in bankruptcy is that large-firm debtors are today, more than in the past, sold in bankruptcy. Fewer firms now undergo traditional reorganization, with new claims and interests issued against the debtor’s assets. In principle, this
三十多年前,托马斯·杰克逊(Thomas Jackson)撰写了《破产法的逻辑和限制》(The Logic and Limits of Bankruptcy Law)一书,将破产描述为债权人之间一种假设交易的实施。根据这种协议的条款,破产自动保留每个债权人的个人托收权,禁止了潜在的破坏性抢夺,并允许集体诉讼,可以维持债务人的持续经营价值,以维护债权人作为一个群体的利益。在学术界和实践者中,杰克逊的假设交易已经成为评估破产的主要范式,这对于学术著作来说是一个真正的壮举。自从杰克逊写了他的经典论文以来,很多事情都发生了变化,特别是在大公司公司破产的世界里,这是这本手册的主要焦点。债权人已经控制了公司重组过程,以前是债务人管理的领域(“持有债务人”或“DIP”)。随着时间的推移,通过扩大使用担保信贷和破产前合同安排,债权人的控制已经得到巩固,这些安排允许主要债权人在破产过程中以单一的声音发言。在破产法院认可的程度上,主债权人之间的这种协调在很大程度上用实际的交易取代了杰克逊假设的债权人交易。这一实际交易对破产程序产生了重要影响,包括财务上的束缚,限制了破产法院让破产程序充分履行不属于联盟债权人的权利的能力。因此,由于新的原因,完全坚持权利——在某些情况下被称为“绝对优先”——变得难以实现。现在,占主导地位的债权人可能会为自己的利益管理破产,而在过去,是债务人的股东,尽管持有资金之外的期权,让他们的经理运行破产程序,以实现一些股本回报。主债权人协调破产的另一个后果是,大公司的债务人今天比过去更多地在破产中被出售。现在很少有公司进行传统的重组,对债务人的资产发出新的债权和利息。原则上,这