Yes, assets should be allowed to be purchased for less than half of their value in bankruptcy situations, if a higher bidder cannot be found in a reasonable amount of time. Some assets, with the current economy, are not going to sell at value or above. As banks, investment firms, and other financial institutions foreclose on more and more property, decisions will have to be made to sell properties at lower than face value in order to remain in business. Once a property has been on the market for a reasonable amount of time, without receiving bids or purchase offers in the property value range, the institutions must make a decision to sell to the highest bidder regardless of whether they are receiving fair market value.
This seems like I could go either direction with the topic. On one hand if a company goes bankrupt, it makes the most sense to utilize their old assets for another company if they can buy them up instead of them going to waste. However I feel it should at least be a priority in order to get as close to the value of the assets as possible. If a company goes bankrupt it seems like the best way to do this is have an auction of their assets giving other companies an equal chance to pay what they feel is both a fair price for the goods as well as themeselves possibly being able to attain these items at a discount.
When you are bankrupt, is it even smart to consider buying anything? My interpretation of bankruptcy is that you have no money, therefore how do you buy things? If anything, you need to be selling things so you can get out of your situation and start over with your company.
In cases of bankruptcy no one should be allowed to purchase assets for less than half of their value. Values shouldn't change just because of bankruptcy. Whatever the going rate for an asset is, is what should be obtained for that asset. Bankruptcy doesn't change the value of items and no one should profit from it.