In the case of Indiana State Police Pension Trust et al. v. Chrysler LLC et al., 2008, the Indiana pension funds (the plaintiffs) challenged the sale of Chrysler's assets to a group led by Fiat during its bankruptcy proceedings. The plaintiffs argued that this sale violated their rights as secured creditors and was not in line with bankruptcy law which prioritizes repayment to secured creditors over unsecured ones. They also claimed that the U.S Treasury Department had overstepped its authority under TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) by financing Chrysler’s restructuring plan despite Congress rejecting such funding for automakers earlier on. However, both lower courts approved the sale and rejected these claims stating it was necessary to prevent further harm to other stakeholders involved including employees, dealerships etc., given Chrysler's dire financial situation at that time. The Supreme Court initially stayed the transaction but later lifted it allowing for completion of said deal without providing any reasoning behind their decision thus leaving questions about how future bankruptcies involving government intervention would be handled legally.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Indiana State Police Pension Trust et al. v. Chrysler LLC et al., 2008, argued that the sale of Chrysler's assets to a new company was not a true sale but rather an attempt to reorganize under Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws while bypassing normal procedures and protections for creditors. The dissenters believed that this violated both bankruptcy law and constitutional due process rights, as it did not give secured creditors like the pension funds sufficient opportunity to object or negotiate better terms. They also expressed concern about potential misuse of Section 363(b) sales (which allow bankrupt companies to sell off assets quickly), arguing that these should be limited cases where there is clear necessity and benefit for all parties involved.