This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), according to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), according to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), the case concerns Travelers Indemnity Company (petitioner) and involves a 1986 bankruptcy court order that was intended to enjoin direct actions against Travelers arising from insurance policies purchased for Johns‑Manville.
Petitioners argue that the bankruptcy court correctly interpreted the 1986 order to bar lawsuits against Travelers based on the derivative liability of Travelers for Manville’s obligations.
The parties dispute the breadth of the injunction and whether adequate notice was given to those affected.
- [1] 14884e458860d21a1b81-r1-450ddbf1613a9a80.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 14884e458860d21a1b81-r1-450ddbf1613a9a80.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 14884e458860d21a1b81-r1-450ddbf1613a9a80.pdf, p. 45
- [4] 14884e458860d21a1b81-r1-450ddbf1613a9a80.pdf, p. 5
- [5] 14884e458860d21a1b81-r1-450ddbf1613a9a80.pdf, p. 21
- [6] 14884e458860d21a1b81-r1-450ddbf1613a9a80.pdf, p. 32
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), according to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), in 1986 the bankruptcy court issued an order that was intended to enjoin direct actions against Travelers based on the insurance policies Manville purchased from Travelers.
According to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), according to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), the Second Circuit, in 1988, affirmed that a bankruptcy court exercising its core jurisdiction properly confirmed the reorganization plan that resolved present and future claims against Johns‑Manville and its insurers.
The Court was asked about the adequacy of notice of the injunction, whether independent actions had begun at the time of the 1986 order, and whether the bankruptcy judge’s actions might violate due‑process protections.
What each side argues
Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company)
Petitioners contend that the bankruptcy court correctly held that the 1986 order was intended to enjoin direct actions against Travelers based on the derivative liability of Travelers for Manville.
According to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), according to Petitioners (Travelers Indemnity Company), petitioners rely on the Second Circuit’s 1988 decisions confirming that the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction and the reorganization plan were proper.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Souter asked how notice of the injunction was given, questioning whether the notice was sufficiently broad.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired whether independent actions had started at the time of the 1986 order.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer raised a due‑process concern, suggesting that if the bankruptcy judge went too far it would violate the Constitution.
Justice Kennedy noted jurisdictional questions, asking whether the parties had been represented on appeal of the 1986 order.
Justice Alito asked whether most of the claims were based on Manville.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 14884e458860d21a1b81-r1-450ddbf1613a9a80.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.