In the late 1930’s Americans developed their first comprehensive law of bankruptcy reorganization.In larger cases,that law provided for the appointment of a trustee and seizure of control of the business from the business’s prior control group.In 1978,that was all changed;the prototype in the United States now leaves the “debtor in possession” charged with operating the business for the benefit of the business’s creditors.In this and many other ways,America’s law differs substantially from China’s relatively-new bankruptcy law.This article briefly looks at some of the stronger differences between the two systems and gives some background to how and why the American system evolved from the older model to the newer one.While we might easily identify many fundamental differences between the American and Chinese systems,drawing normative policy recommendations from those differences is a much more challenging task.One might,of course,be tempted to do so anyway.But the differing cultural,legal,and economic contexts within which bankruptcy reorganization exists suggests that one so tempted should proceed very cautiously and,perhaps,with an extra measure of modesty as well. In the late 1930 Americans developed their first comprehensive law of bankruptcy reorganization.In larger cases, that law provided for the appointment of a trustee and seizure of control of the business from the business’s prior control group. 1978, that was all changed; the prototype in the United States now leaves the “debtor in possession ” charged with operating the business for the benefit of the business’s creditors.In this and many other ways, America’s law vary substantially from China’s relatively-new bankruptcy law. This article briefly looks at some of the stronger differences between the two systems and gives some background to how and why the American system evolved from the older model to the newer one. Whilst we might easily identify many fundamental differences between the American and Chinese systems, drawing normative policy recommendations from those differences is a much more challenging task.One might, of course, be tempted to do so anyway.But the differing cultural, legal, and economic contexts within which bankruptcy reorganization exists suggests that one so tempted should proceed very cautiously and, perhaps, with an extra measure of modesty as well.