In the 1953 case of General Protective Committee for the Holders of Option Warrants of The United Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al., the U.S Supreme Court upheld a decision by the SEC regarding a reorganization plan proposed by The United Corporation. This plan involved eliminating option warrants, which were essentially options to buy stock at a certain price, held by some shareholders without compensating them. The General Protective Committee argued that this was unfair and violated their rights as warrant holders. However, the court ruled in favor of SEC's approval on grounds that these warrants had no current value due to company’s financial situation; hence their elimination did not constitute any loss or damage to warrant holders' interests under federal securities laws.

In the dissenting opinion for General Protective Committee v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a reorganization plan proposed by United Corporation was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it is not within the purview of courts to decide on matters related to business judgment or policy, such as whether a corporation should be liquidated or reorganized. Instead, these decisions should be left up to shareholders who have economic stakes in them. Furthermore, he criticized the SEC’s role in approving this plan without considering alternative proposals from minority shareholders and expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest among members of United Corporation's board who also held positions at other corporations involved in its reorganization.