However, for today, we will put these interesting questions aside and focus upon the merits of these proposals. The United States bankruptcy procedure generally involves a forum widely perceived to be impartial, focused largely upon maximizing the value of the estate for the creditors. A party to the contracts, i.e., a significant creditor or the debtor, must initiate the proceeding. And, even in the United States, a bankruptcy filing is not a step lightly taken. The owners and management of the debtor are at risk of losing their equity and their jobs.
Creditors fear losing control of the process.
It will be very difficult for the IMF to provide a forum that creditors will view as impartial. The IMF is, by its nature, political. Its objectives, quite rightly, are not to maximize the debtor ' s estate for the benefit of private creditors. And, given that the IMF and its major shareholders are lenders themselves, the IMF has a conflict of interest not easily susceptible to remedy. It is likely to have a policy agenda that may preclude it from acting predominately as a referee, letting the debtors and creditors work things out as they see fit.