Laurence S. Moss

Bankruptcy Reform in Russia: The Case for Creditor-Rights in Russia

Russia at the dawn of the 21st century is experiencing a collapsing economy. In a world where healthy economies create and maintain capital, it is critically important that all efforts be made to assure all creditors and especially private direct investors that in the event of debtor-insolvency their business interests are protected. The role of bankruptcy law under a regime of what I call “creditor rights” is limited. The court system can be used to avoid a “creditorss race” to grab assets. Whenever the “going concern” value of a firm is greater than the sum of the assets sold separately a case can be made for a bankruptcy procedure as a way of protecting creditor rights. This paper examines the historical origins of the “creditor rights tradition” and advocates such a regime for modern Russia. This paper holds that especially with respect to Russia, we would do well to heed John Stuart Mills advice and support reforms that favor creditors and protect the value of their rights. Those insolvent firms owned and managed by political oligarchs should be cut down, dismembered, and the assets they command transferred to new and more imaginative and solvent groups of managers.

Harmony, Conflict, and Culture

was something absolutely exciting about his research program. 2 His proposal to restate the basic theorems of modern economics so that they would be encased completely within a general science of human action, which he named &dquo;praxeology,&dquo; still generates enthusiastic comment today.3 Praxeology studied human action &dquo;irrespective of all environmental, accidental and individual circumstances of the concrete acts.&dquo;4 What Mises offered was an understand-

Opening remarks about the LSE panel

The following papers are concerned with the contribution of the London School of Economics to economics. We already have F. A. Hayeks, Lord Beveridges, and Sir Henry Caines respective accounts of the administrative and organizational changes that occurred at LSE since its inception of 18952 The papers presented here are the first report about the intellectual contributions of the economics faculty itself. Certainly a school whose special mission was (and continues to be) the encouragement of fundamental reserach in the social sciences while at the same time catering to the particular needs of a large number of foreign and local students (many of whom intend to take positions in government) is apt to become a special educational institution indeed. This is exactly what has happened at LSE. LSE is something of a legend in its youthful 87 year history boasting a roster of economics professors that has included E. Cannan, W. Hewins, A Bowley, A Plant, L. Knowles, L. Robbins, W. Cunningham, F. A. Hayek, R. H. Tawney J. R. Hicks, H. S. Foxwell, F. Paish, H. Dalton, T. S. Ashton, A. W. Phillips, N. Kaldor, F. C. Benham, R. G. D. Allen, J. Wiseman, R. Edwards, A. Lerner, R. Coase, A. Peacock, B. Yamey, A. Young, A. Watters, H. Johnson, J. Meade and many others. It is difficult to conceive of a more heterogeneous and yet accomplished group of scholars. It may be instructive to compare this panets efforts at evaluating LSEs contribution to economics, with a recent evaluative effort carried out by Watt Street Journal staff reporter, Mr.

Introduction to the Symposium

The editors of the symposium explain the origin of this interesting set of comments and the principal approach to the problem of custom offered by Ekkehart Schlicht. Copyright 2002 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology.