In the 1967 case Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, Trustee in Bankruptcy et al., the Supreme Court ruled on a bankruptcy reorganization plan that had been approved by lower courts despite objections from minority stockholders who argued it was unfair and discriminatory. The high court agreed with these stockholders, finding that their interests were not adequately protected under the proposed plan which would have given them only a small fraction of their original investment while other creditors received full repayment. In its decision, the court emphasized that fairness and equity are paramount considerations in bankruptcy proceedings and held that all interested parties must be treated fairly according to principles of absolute priority.

In the dissenting opinion for Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to remand the case back to lower courts was unnecessary and burdensome on both time and resources. He believed there was sufficient evidence presented in court records to make a determination without further proceedings. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that bankruptcy reorganization plans must always be fair and equitable in terms of absolute priority rule or market value test; instead, he contended such determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis considering all relevant factors including practical realities faced by businesses undergoing reorganization under Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws.