# Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 6, 1968 · 390 U.S. 414

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423644

## Case

- **Full name:** PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE FOR INDEPENDENT STOCKHOLDERS OF TMT TRAILER FERRY, INC. v. ANDERSON, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 6, 1968
- **Citations:** 390 U.S. 414; 88 S. Ct. 1157; 20 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2902
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harlan
- **Judges:** White, Harlan, Marshall, Stewart, Fortas
- **Cited by:** 820 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423644

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, in determining whether a compromise is fair and equitable, a bankruptcy judge should form “an educated estimate of the complexity, expense, and likely duration of such litigation, the possible difficulties of collecting on any judgment which might be obtained....…
- finding that a bankruptcy judge should form “an educated estimate of the complexity, expense, and likely duration of such litigation, the possible difficulties of collecting on any judgment which might be obtained, and all other factors relevant to a full and fair assessment o…
- holding that settlements are important in bankruptcy because they “help clear a path for the efficient administration of the bankrupt estate”
- holding that in plan confirmation context, courts must “determine that a proposed compromise forming part of a reorganization plan is fair and equitable.”
- holding that the bankruptcy court has a duty to make an independent, informed judgment as to whether a proposed compromise is fair and equitable

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Harlan,
whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Fortas join,
dissenting.
In my opinion, the only question which could be thought even remotely to justify the presence of this case in this Court is whether the trustee, by virtue of his office, was as a matter of law disqualified from being selected as president of the reorganized company. The Court, however, does not decide that question. The review of the massive record in these reorganization proceedings, which have been in the courts for over 10 years and on six occasions before the Court of Appeals at various stages, is not in my view an appropriate task for this Court. Believing that this decision bodes little but further delay in bringing this protracted proceeding to a conclusion, I feel justified in voting to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, despite the fact that the case was brought here on an unrestricted, writ. Since the Court does not reach the “disqualification” issue, I consider it inappropriate for me, as an individual Justice, to express my own views upon it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423644. Public record. Not legal advice.