Generally, I code faster, and better, the second time around.
If you were the original author, there is some chance that a court would find that any second coding you do would be covered by the original copyright. You certainly wouldn't be able to claim "clean room" non-exposure to the original. And, whether the court would find that or not, that could still be an expensive proposition, if you coded something valuable enough for a post-bankruptcy assignee to decide that your second coding of it was interfering with their profits.
Small chance, you say? You're absolutely right. But OTOH, any company that wouldn't mind you using something that you yourself created the second time shouldn't really mind you using something you created the first time either.
No, I have to agree with the assessment of others that copyright assignment is a non-starter. There is a continuum of potential contributions, but at one end you have small bugfixes that are useless for any other piece of software, so nobody should care who owns the copyright. At the other end, you have major pieces of work that might contain large libraries of independently-useful functions. If you want to attract developers to create and contribute those then you shouldn't limit their ability to reuse their own creations.
Furthermore, if it's merely a license grant rather than a copyright assignment, then the damage that a wayward bankruptcy judge can do (think what happened to Novell's revenue stream in SCO) becomes quite limited.