Gretchen Morgenson Doesn't Tell Me What I Want to Know

I see that Gretchen Morgenson has joined the anti-bailout chorus, motivated not least by her animosity against Bear Stearns per se, and the way they have run their business (link). She calls it "this decade's version of Drexel Burnham Lambert," which I suspect may be a libel on Drexel Burnham (but then, you can't libel the dead).

There's a great deal of merit in which she says but she still misses a distinction which I, as a simple, barefoot, country bankruptcy lawyer, would want to pursue. That is: the difference between saving the enterprise and saving the equity. For example (or see it here):

Anyway, the points are (a) the business is underwater, insolvent, upside down--there is nothing for equity either way; but (b) the business is worth more as a going concern than it is in liquidation. So the creditors have a stake in seeing to it that the going concern value is preserved, even if equity is wiped out. That's why God created bankruptcy trustees. That's what banking regulators are supposed to do in banking cases; insurance regulators in insurance cases and receivers/stakeholders in any number of special situations where there is some value to be preserved.

Seems to me there is plenty of room for "bailout" intervention insofar as it means preserving the going concern value. But this sort of thing need have nothing to do with paying off the buffoons who created the problem. Gretchen is a grownup; she ought to understand this. I'd like to know what she thinks of it.