First, this isn't my area so don't take anything I say as authoritative (not that anyone should regardless of the area).
The system isn't really any particular "way" - it is what it is. Whether bankruptcy is better than the alternatives depends on the facts of each particular case and the alternatives available.
In most cases, there aren't really any alternatives. If a company can't find a buyer and can't make ends meet, there is just bankruptcy left. In those cases, there are very particular rules about who gets what. The creditors were aware of these rules when they made their investments, so they knew what they were getting into and what they can expect.
The reason why there's so many alternatives in these cases is because the government has an interest in how the cases turn out, so they're inserting themselves into the process, whether by advocating for a particular division, making promises to various parties, or offering incentives for other companies to come in and purchase assets. The result of this is that the normal rules don't apply. Creditors who normally could have predicted what they would get no longer have any idea. On top of that, they're being outright threatened by the government that if they don't go along with what the government wants, they will be ostracized as "not playing nice" and will get on the ****list, which absolutely nobody wants to be anywhere near nowadays.
It's creating a lot of uncertainty, and is having significant effects on how willing corporations (esp. investment vehicles) are to get involved in anything even tangentially related to the government.