Bankruptcy law serves as a crucial mechanism in handling the financial collapse of businesses and individuals, ensuring that assets are distributed fairly among creditors while giving the debtor a fresh start. Among the various frameworks developed to explain the purpose of bankruptcy law, one of the most influential is the "Creditors' Bargain Theory." First introduced by Thomas H. Jackson in the 1980s, this theory has been both a cornerstone of bankruptcy law discourse and a topic of significant debate.
What is the Creditors' Bargain Theory?
At its core, the Creditors' Bargain Theory posits that bankruptcy law exists primarily to recreate the bargain creditors would have hypothetically made among themselves before the debtor entered financial distress. In essence, bankruptcy law acts as a collective forum where creditors' individual rights are reconciled with one another to prevent a destructive "race to the assets." This theory is based on two key premises:
Collective Action Problem: Without bankruptcy law, individual creditors would have an incentive to seize the debtor’s assets as quickly as possible, leading to disorganized asset liquidation that reduces overall value for everyone involved. Bankruptcy law mitigates this risk by ensuring a structured, equitable distribution of the debtor's assets.
Non-Bankruptcy Entitlements: The theory also emphasizes that bankruptcy should respect creditors' non-bankruptcy entitlements—those rights creditors would have had outside of bankruptcy. For instance, secured creditors retain their liens, and unsecured creditors are paid according to their priority.
The Purpose of Bankruptcy: Value Preservation
One of the core contributions of the Creditors' Bargain Theory is its focus on value preservation. Instead of allowing creditors to deplete the debtor’s assets in an uncoordinated manner, bankruptcy law creates a structured process that seeks to maximize the value of the estate for the collective benefit of creditors. This is particularly important in Chapter 11 reorganization cases, where the preservation of business value is crucial for ongoing operations.
The law-and-economics framework of this theory assumes that rational creditors would prefer a system that avoids the inefficiencies of an asset grab. Thus, bankruptcy law is designed to mirror what creditors would have negotiated themselves—an orderly, collective process to maximize returns.
Criticisms and Alternatives to the Creditors' Bargain Theory
Despite its influence, the Creditors' Bargain Theory has faced several criticisms. One major critique is that it is overly theoretical and does not account for the messy reality of financial distress, where creditors may have diverse motivations and bargaining power.
For example, in his “Chapter 11 Renegotiation Framework” article, Anthony Casey argues that bankruptcy law should be viewed as a tool for solving the "incomplete contract" problem that arises during financial distress. According to Casey, the primary goal of bankruptcy is not to recreate a hypothetical ex-ante bargain among creditors but to provide a mechanism for renegotiating incomplete contracts and avoiding value-destroying hold-up problems. This shifts the focus from preserving creditors' rights to ensuring a more pragmatic approach to preserving value through renegotiation under judicial supervision.
The Role of the Trustee and Automatic Stay
Within the framework of the Creditors' Bargain Theory, the bankruptcy trustee plays a pivotal role in protecting the estate and ensuring creditors’ rights are balanced. As the representative of the bankruptcy estate, the trustee marshals assets, challenges improper claims, and enforces the automatic stay, which prevents creditors from pursuing individual actions that could disrupt the collective process.
The automatic stay is a critical feature of bankruptcy law, preventing creditors from initiating lawsuits or continuing with collections while the case is being resolved. This freeze ensures that the debtor’s assets remain intact, allowing the court to oversee a fair and orderly distribution.
Conclusion: Is the Creditors' Bargain Theory Still Relevant?
While the Creditors' Bargain Theory remains a foundational concept in understanding bankruptcy law, it is not without its detractors. Critics argue that real-world bankruptcy cases often involve complexities that the theory does not fully capture. Nevertheless, the theory provides a useful lens for examining how bankruptcy law balances the interests of creditors and promotes value preservation through collective action.
In modern discussions, alternatives like the "incomplete contracts" approach offer a more flexible view of bankruptcy's role in addressing financial distress. Still, the Creditors' Bargain Theory remains essential for understanding why bankruptcy law exists—to prevent the chaotic scramble for assets and ensure an orderly process that respects creditors' pre-bankruptcy rights.
Σχόλια