In the case of H. K. Porter Co., Inc., et al. v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc., et al., 1960, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Central Vermont Railway (CVR). The dispute arose when CVR decided to abandon a portion of its railway line due to financial losses and sought approval from Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which was granted despite objections from H.K Porter Co and other shippers who used this line for their businesses. They argued that ICC's decision was arbitrary as it didn't consider public convenience and necessity before granting permission for abandonment. The Supreme Court held that ICC had acted within its authority by considering all relevant factors including the financial burden on CVR if forced to continue operations against economic feasibility, even though some inconvenience would be caused to shippers like H.K Porter Co due to discontinuation of service on this particular route.

In the dissenting opinion for H.K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a creditor (H.K. Porter) to force a debtor (Central Vermont Railway) into reorganization under Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act went against established principles of bankruptcy law and policy. The dissenting justices believed that this provision should only be used when there is mutual consent between creditors and debtors or when it would serve public interest, neither of which were present in this case according to them. They also expressed concern about potential abuse by creditors who might use forced reorganizations as leverage in negotiations with financially distressed companies, thereby undermining their recovery efforts.