In the case of Celotex Corporation v. Bennie Edwards et ux., 1994, the United States Supreme Court addressed issues related to bankruptcy law and asbestos-related claims. The court had to decide whether a company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy could establish a trust fund to handle future asbestos-related personal injury claims, while also limiting its liability for these claims. The claimants argued that this violated their due process rights as it effectively extinguished their right to sue in state courts without providing them with adequate compensation or representation during the bankruptcy proceedings. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Celotex Corporation stating that such trusts were permissible under federal bankruptcy laws and did not violate due process rights of potential future claimants because they would still be able to seek compensation from these trusts.

In the dissenting opinion for Celotex Corporation v. Bennie Edwards et ux., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both precedent and fairness. He contended that a bankruptcy court should not have been allowed to issue an injunction preventing asbestos victims from suing insurance companies, as this effectively shielded these insurers from liability without providing adequate compensation for claimants. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s interpretation of “fair and equitable” treatment under Chapter 11 of Bankruptcy Code, arguing it undermined traditional principles of corporate law by allowing a debtor to retain assets while discharging its debts at less than full value. This approach, according to Justice Stevens, unfairly prioritized shareholders over creditors in violation of absolute priority rule.