Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey — Stevens, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would affirm the Court of Appeals' determination that the 1986 bankruptcy injunction barred only claims seeking recovery from Manville's insurance proceeds or estate for Manville's wrongdoing, not claims alleging independent wrongdoing by Travelers. It reasons that the broader interpretation adopted by the Court exceeded the Bankruptcy Court's authority and improperly transformed the 2004 clarification order into a new injunction. The dissent therefore rejects the conclusion that respondents' challenge was an impermissible collateral attack and would permit the independent state-law claims to proceed, subject to classification by the Bankruptcy Court.