(Slip Opinion)              OCTOBER TERM, 2023                                       1

                                       Syllabus

         NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
       being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
       The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
       prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
       See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 

.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                       Syllabus

TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM
              CO., INC., ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
                 THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

      No. 22–1079. Argued March 19, 2024—Decided June 6, 2024
Petitioner Truck Insurance Exchange is the primary insurer for compa-
  nies that manufactured and sold products containing asbestos. Two of
  those companies, Kaiser Gypsum Co. and Hanson Permanente Cement
  (Debtors), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after facing thousands of
  asbestos-related lawsuits. As part of the bankruptcy process, the Debt-
  ors filed a proposed reorganization plan (Plan). That Plan creates an
  Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (Trust) under 

(g), a
  provision that allows Chapter 11 debtors with substantial asbestos-
  related liability to fund a trust and channel all present and future as-
  bestos-related claims into that trust. Truck is contractually obligated
  to defend each covered asbestos personal injury claim and to indemnify
  the Debtors for up to $500,000 per claim. For their part, the Debtors
  must pay a $5,000 deductible per claim, and assist and cooperate with
  Truck in defending the claims. The Plan treats insured and uninsured
  claims differently, requiring insured claims to be filed in the tort sys-
  tem for the benefit of the insurance coverage, while uninsured claims
  are submitted directly to the Trust for resolution.
     Truck sought to oppose the Plan under §1109(b) of the Bankruptcy
  Code, which permits any “party in interest” to “raise” and “be heard on
  any issue” in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Among other things, Truck
  argues that the Plan exposes it to millions of dollars in fraudulent
  claims because the Plan does not require the same disclosures and au-
  thorizations for insured and uninsured claims. Truck also asserts that
  the Plan impermissibly alters its rights under its insurance policies.
  The District Court confirmed the Plan. It concluded, among other
  things, that Truck had limited standing to object to the Plan because
2     TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM CO.

                                  Syllabus

    the Plan was “insurance neutral,” i.e., it did not increase Truck’s prep-
    etition obligations or impair its contractual rights under its insurance
    policies. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Truck was not a
    “party in interest” under §1109(b) because the plan was “insurance
    neutral.”
Held: An insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a
 “party in interest” under §1109(b) that “may raise and may appear and
 be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11 case. Pp. 7–15.
    (a) Section 1109(b)’s text, context, and history confirm that an in-
 surer such as Truck with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy
 claim is a “party in interest” because it may be directly and adversely
 affected by the reorganization plan. Pp. 7–13.
      (1) Section 1109(b)’s text is capacious. To start, it provides an il-
 lustrative but not exhaustive list of parties in interest, all of which are
 directly affected by a reorganization plan either because they have a
 financial interest in the estate’s assets or because they represent par-
 ties that do. This Court has observed that Congress uses the phrase
 “party in interest” in bankruptcy provisions when it intends the provi-
 sion to apply “broadly.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Plant-
 ers Bank, N. A., 

. This understanding aligns with the
 ordinary meaning of the terms “party” and “interest,” which together
 refer to entities that are potentially concerned with, or affected by, a
 proceeding. The historical context and purpose of §1109(b) also sup-
 port this interpretation. Congress consistently has acted to promote
 greater participation in reorganization proceedings. That expansion
 of participatory rights continued with the enactment of §1109(b).
 Broad participation promotes a fair and equitable reorganization pro-
 cess. Pp. 7–11.
      (2) Applying these principles, insurers such as Truck are parties
 in interest. An insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy
 claims can be directly and adversely affected by the reorganization pro-
 ceedings in myriad ways. In this case, for example, Truck will have to
 pay the vast majority of the Trust’s liability, and §524(g)’s channeling
 injunction, which stays any action against the Debtors, means that
 Truck would stand alone in carrying that financial burden. According
 to Truck, however, a plan that lacks the disclosure requirements for
 the uninsured claims risks exposing Truck to millions of dollars in
 fraudulent tort claims. The Government frames Truck’s interest
 slightly differently, but the result is the same: Where a proposed plan
 “allows a party to put its hands into other people’s pockets, the ones
 with the pockets are entitled to be fully heard and to have their legiti-
 mate objections addressed.” In re Global Indus. Technologies, Inc., 

, 204.
    Providing Truck an opportunity to be heard is consistent with
                      Cite as: 

 (2024)                      3

                                 Syllabus

  §1109(b)’s purpose of promoting a fair and equitable reorganization
  process. Here, the Plan eliminates the Debtors ongoing liability, and
  claimants similarly have little incentive to propose barriers to their
  ability to recover from Truck. Truck may well be the only entity with
  an incentive to identify problems with the Plan. Pp. 11–13.
     (b) The Court of Appeals looked exclusively at whether the Plan al-
  tered Truck’s contract rights or its “quantum of liability.” This ap-
  proach, known as the “insurance neutrality” doctrine, is conceptually
  wrong and makes little practical sense. Conceptually, the doctrine
  conflates the merits of an objection with the threshold party in interest
  inquiry. The §1109(b) inquiry asks whether the reorganization pro-
  ceedings might affect a prospective party, not how a particular reor-
  ganization plan actually affects that party. Practically, the doctrine is
  too limited in its scope. By focusing on the insurer’s prepetition obli-
  gations and policy rights, the doctrine wrongly ignores all the other
  ways in which bankruptcy proceedings and reorganization plans can
  alter and impose obligations on insurers and debtors. The fact that
  Truck’s financial exposure may be directly and adversely affected by a
  plan is sufficient to give Truck a right to voice its objections. Finally,
  in resisting the text of §1109(b), the Debtors emphasize the risks of
  allowing “peripheral parties” to derail a reorganization. This “parade
  of horribles” argument cannot override the statute’s text, and in any
  event, §1109(b) provides parties in interest only an opportunity to be
  heard—not a vote or a veto in the proceedings. In all events, the Court
  today does not opine on the outer bounds of §1109. Difficult cases may
  require courts to evaluate whether truly peripheral parties have a suf-
  ficiently direct interest to be heard. This case is not one of them be-
  cause insurers such as Truck with financial responsibility for claims
  are not peripheral parties. Pp. 13–15.

, reversed and remanded.

  SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other
Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration
or decision of the case.
                        Cite as: 

 (2024)                              1

                             Opinion of the Court

     NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
     United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
     Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
     [email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                                   _________________

                                   No. 22–1079
                                   _________________


  TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, PETITIONER v.
     KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., ET AL.
 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
           APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
                                  [June 6, 2024]

  JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
  The Bankruptcy Code allows any “party in interest” to
“raise” and “be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11 bank-
ruptcy. 

(b). The question in this case is
whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bank-
ruptcy claim is a “party in interest” under this provision.
  Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck) is the primary in-
surer for companies that manufactured and sold products
containing asbestos. Those companies filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy after facing thousands of asbestos-related law-
suits. Truck is obligated to pay up to $500,000 per asbestos
claim covered under its insurance contracts with the com-
panies. Truck sought to object to the companies’ bank-
ruptcy reorganization plan primarily because the plan
lacked disclosure requirements that Truck thought could
save it from paying millions of dollars in fraudulent claims.
  The Court of Appeals concluded that Truck was not a
“party in interest” because the reorganization plan was “in-
surance neutral”; that is, the plan neither increased Truck’s
prepetition obligations nor impaired its rights under the in-
surance contracts. This Court disagrees. The insurance
2   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM CO.

                      Opinion of the Court

neutrality doctrine conflates the merits of an insurer’s ob-
jection with the threshold §1109(b) question of who quali-
fies as a “party in interest.” Section 1109(b) asks whether
the reorganization proceedings might directly affect a pro-
spective party, not how a particular reorganization plan ac-
tually affects that party.
   Truck is a “party in interest” under §1109(b). An insurer
with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is suf-
ficiently concerned with, or affected by, the proceedings to
be a “party in interest” that can raise objections to a reor-
ganization plan. Section 1109(b) grants insurers neither a
vote nor a veto; it simply provides them a voice in the pro-
ceedings.
                               I
                               A
   Bankruptcy offers individuals and businesses in financial
distress a fresh start to reorganize, discharge their debts,
and maximize the property available to creditors. “Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code enables a debtor company to re-
organize its business under a court-approved plan govern-
ing the distribution of assets to creditors.” U. S. Bank N. A.
v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 

 (2018).
This plan, which is primarily the product of negotiations
between the debtor and creditors, “govern[s] the distribu-
tion of valuable assets from the debtor’s estate and often
keep[s] the business operating as a going concern.”
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 

 (2017).
Chapter 11 strikes “a balance between a debtor’s interest in
reorganizing and restructuring its debts and the creditors’
interest in maximizing the value of the bankruptcy estate.”
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 

 (2008).
   Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code addresses which
stakeholders can participate, and to what extent, in these
reorganization proceedings:
                 Cite as: 

 (2024)            3

                     Opinion of the Court

    “A party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee,
    a creditors’ committee, an equity security holders’ com-
    mittee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or any in-
    denture trustee, may raise and may appear and be
    heard on any issue in a case under this chapter.”
A “party in interest” enjoys certain rights in the proceed-
ings, including the ability to file a Chapter 11 plan when a
trustee has been appointed, 

(c)(1); request
the appointment or removal of a trustee, §§1104, 1105; chal-
lenge the good faith of persons voting to approve a plan,
§1126(e); and object to confirmation of a plan, §1128(b).
                              B
    This case concerns the Chapter 11 reorganization of com-
panies facing overwhelming asbestos liability. Exposure to
asbestos, a natural mineral used in industrial work, has led
to devastating health consequences for millions of people.
See National Cancer Institute, Asbestos Exposure and Can-
cer Risk (Nov. 29, 2021). Companies filing for bankruptcy
because of asbestos liability face unique challenges.
“ ‘[B]ecause of a latency period that may last as long as 40
years for some asbestos related diseases, a continuing
stream of claims can be expected.’ ” Amchem Products, Inc.
v. Windsor, 

 (1997). Claims therefore ar-
rive on a long and unpredictable timeline. If bankruptcy
proceedings resolved only existing asbestos liability, com-
panies would face unknown future liability and claimants
might be unable to recover just because their injuries had
not yet manifested.
    Congress responded to these challenges in §524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code. This section allows a Chapter 11 debtor
with substantial asbestos-related liability to establish and
fund a trust that assumes the debtor’s liability for “dam-
ages allegedly caused by the presence of, or exposure to, as-
bestos or asbestos-containing products.” §524(g)(2)(B)(i)(I).
Section 524(g) then channels all present and future claims
4   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM CO.

                      Opinion of the Court

into the trust by “enjoin[ing] entities from taking legal ac-
tion for the purpose of directly or indirectly collecting, re-
covering, or receiving payment or recovery” for claims “to be
paid in whole or in part by [the] trust.” Finally, §524(g) im-
poses safeguards, including the appointment of a repre-
sentative to protect the interest of future claimants,
§524(g)(4)(B)(i); treatment of “present claims and future de-
mands that involve similar claims in substantially the same
manner,” §524(g)(2)(B)(ii)(V); and approval from at least
75% of current claimants, §524(g)(2)(B)(ii)(IV)(bb). This all
“ensure[s] that health claims can be asserted only against
the Trust and that [the company’s] operating entities will
be protected from an onslaught of crippling lawsuits that
could jeopardize the entire reorganization effort.” Kane v.
Johns-Mansville Corp., 

 (CA2 1988). It
also ensures that “future claimants” are “treated identically
to the present claimants.” 

                              C
  Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., and its parent company,
Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., manufactured and sold
products that, at some point, contained asbestos. The com-
panies faced tens of thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits
as a result. To resolve their liabilities, both companies
(Debtors) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy
Court in turn appointed representatives for the current and
future asbestos claimants (Claimants). The Debtors even-
tually agreed on a proposed reorganization plan (Plan) with
the Claimants, various creditors and government agencies,
and all but one of their insurance providers.
  The Plan creates a §524(g) Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust (Trust) that assumes the Debtors’ liabilities and is
funded by the Debtors and their parent company. The Plan
also transfers “all of the Debtors’ rights” under their insur-
ance contracts to the Trust, including “all rights to coverage
and insurance proceeds.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 181a.
                      Cite as: 

 (2024)                     5

                          Opinion of the Court

  Truck was the Debtors’ primary insurer. It issued poli-
cies that covered the Debtors from 1965 through 1983.
Truck is contractually obligated to defend each covered as-
bestos personal injury claim and typically indemnify the
Debtors for up to $500,000 per claim. The Debtors have to
pay a $5,000 deductible per claim, and assist and cooperate
with Truck in defending against the claims. The Plan re-
quired the Bankruptcy Court to make a finding that the
Debtors’ conduct in the bankruptcy proceedings neither vi-
olated this assistance-and-cooperation duty nor breached
any implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Plan
Finding).
  The Plan treats insured and uninsured claims differ-
ently. Insured claims are filed “in the tort system to obtain
the benefit of [the] insurance coverage.” 

 at 241a. Truck
has to defend these lawsuits, and if the claimant obtains a
favorable judgment, the Trust pays the deductible and
Truck pays up to $500,000 per claim. Uninsured claims,
however, are submitted directly to the Trust for resolution.
As part of that process, claimants have to identify “all other
[related] claims” and file a release authorizing the Trust to
obtain documentation from other asbestos trusts about
other submitted claims. See 2 App. 428–431. These disclo-
sure requirements are intended to reduce fraudulent and
duplicative claims.1
  Truck was the only party involved in the bankruptcy that
——————
  1 Without these requirements, Truck contends, it can be difficult to

trace an asbestos injury to a particular exposure or to identify earlier
claims against other entities. Knowing a claimant’s other exposures and
claims helps prevent inflated recoveries. The Debtors and Claimants
contend that Truck was not entitled to these disclosures before bank-
ruptcy and could still obtain them in discovery in the tort system. That
ignores the practical and legal consequences of the Debtors’ bankruptcy
petition. See infra, at 14. Indeed, in recent years, “nearly every Section
524(g) trust has included almost identical fraud-prevention measures to
protect debtors and their insurers.” Brief for Petitioner 10. In any event,
these are merits arguments on which Truck is entitled to be heard.
6   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM CO.

                      Opinion of the Court

did not support the Plan. It advanced three main objec-
tions. First, and most relevant here, the Plan was not “pro-
posed in good faith,” 

(a)(3), “because it re-
flected a collusive agreement between the Debtors and
claimant representatives,” and did not require “the same
disclosures and authorizations” for insured and uninsured
claims, In re Kaiser Gypsum Co., 

 (CA4
2023). This “disparate treatment would expose [Truck] to
millions of dollars in fraudulent tort claims.” 

 Second,
the Plan Finding impermissibly altered Truck’s rights un-
der its insurance policies “by relieving the Debtors of their
assistance-and-cooperation obligations and by barring
Truck from raising the Debtors’ bankruptcy conduct as a
defense in future coverage disputes.” 

 Third, the Trust
did not comply with various provisions of §524(g), including
the requirement to “deal equitably with claims and future
demands,” as required by §524(g)(2)(B)(ii)(III).
   Following the Bankruptcy Court’s recommendation, the
District Court confirmed the Plan. Relevant here, it con-
cluded that “Truck has limited standing to object to the
Plan solely on the grounds that the Plan is not insurance
neutral.” In re Kaiser Gypsum Co., 

, *27
(WDNC, July 28, 2021). The court found, however, that the
Plan was “insurance neutral” because it “neither in-
crease[d] Truck’s obligations nor impair[ed] its prepetition
contractual rights under the Truck Policies. The Plan
simply restore[d] Truck to its position immediately prior to
the Petition Date.” 

. The court also rejected
Truck’s challenge to the Plan Finding because the Plan ex-
pressly provided that the Debtors “will continue to fulfill
their cooperation obligations arising under” the policies.

.
   The Fourth Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the District
Court that Truck was not a “party in interest” under
§1109(b) because the Plan did not “increase [Truck’s] pre-
petition obligations or impair [Truck’s] pre-petition policy
                     Cite as: 

 (2024)                    7

                          Opinion of the Court

rights.” 

. In other words, the Plan was “in-
surance neutral” because it did not “alte[r] Truck’s pre-
bankruptcy ‘quantum of liability’ ” given that Truck was
“not entitled” to the “fraud-prevention measures” it sought.

. The court also concluded that the Plan Finding
did not alter Truck’s contractual rights and that the Debt-
ors did not “breach their assistance-and-cooperation obliga-
tions or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”

.
   This Court granted certiorari to decide whether an in-
surer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is
a “party in interest” under §1109(b). 

 (2023).2
                             II
   Courts must determine on a case-by-case basis whether a
prospective party has a sufficient stake in reorganization
proceedings to be a “party in interest.” Section 1109(b)’s
text, context, and history confirm that an insurer such as
Truck with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim
is a “party in interest” because it may be directly and ad-
versely affected by the reorganization plan.
                              A
   Section 1109(b) permits any “party in interest” to “appear
and be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11 proceeding.
This text is capacious. To start, §1109(b) provides an illus-
trative but not exhaustive list of parties in interest. See
supra, at 3. A common thread uniting the seven listed par-
ties is that each may be directly affected by a reorganization
plan either because they have a financial interest in the es-
tate’s assets (the debtor, creditor, and equity security

——————
  2 The courts below also addressed whether Truck is a “party in inter-

est” on the separate basis that it is “a creditor.” 

(b).
Because this Court holds that Truck is a “party in interest” based on its
insurer status, the Court does not address alternative arguments based
on Truck’s creditor status.
8   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM CO.

                          Opinion of the Court

holder) or because they represent parties that do (a credi-
tors’ committee, an equity security holders’ committee, a
trustee, and an indenture trustee). “The general theory be-
hind [§1109(b)] is that anyone holding a direct financial
stake in the outcome of the case should have an opportunity
(either directly or through an appropriate representative)
to participate in the adjudication of any issue that may ul-
timately shape the disposition of his or her interest.” 7 Col-
lier on Bankruptcy ¶1109.01 (16th ed. 2023). This under-
standing aligns with this Court’s observation that Congress
uses the phrase “ ‘party in interest’ ” in bankruptcy provi-
sions when it intends the provision to apply “broadly.”
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank,
N. A., 

 (2000) (quoting 

(a)).
    The ordinary meaning of the terms “party” and “interest”
confirms this. “Party” in this context is best understood as
“[a] person who constitutes or is one of those who compose
. . . one or [the] other of the two sides in an action or affair;
one concerned in an affair; a participator; as, a party in in-
terest.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1784 (2d
ed. 1949). “Interest” is best understood as “[c]oncern, or the
state of being concerned or affected, esp[ecially] with re-
spect to advantage, personal or general.” 

. The
plain meaning of the phrase thus refers to entities that are
potentially concerned with or affected by a proceeding.3
The parties in this case land on roughly this same defini-
tion. See Brief for Petitioner 26 (defining “party in interest”
as anyone that may be “ ‘directly and adversely affected’ by

——————
   3 Legal dictionaries from the time of §1109(b)’s enactment and onward

similarly define the phrase “party in interest.” See Ballentine’s Law Dic-
tionary 920 (3d ed. 1969) (defining “party in interest” as a “party to an
action who has an actual interest in the controversy, as distinguished
from a nominal party”); cf. Black’s Law Dictionary 1122 (6th ed. 1990)
(“Primary meaning ascribed the term ‘party in interest’ in bankruptcy
cases is one whose pecuniary interest is directly affected by the bank-
ruptcy proceeding”).
                      Cite as: 

 (2024)                       9

                           Opinion of the Court

the reorganization” (alterations omitted)); Brief for Debtor-
Side Respondents 29 (“To the extent Truck acknowledges
that a ‘party in interest’ under Section 1109(b) is someone
‘directly and adversely affected by the reorganization,’ the
parties are in violent agreement”); Brief for Claimant Re-
spondents 1 (similar).4
   The historical context and purpose of §1109(b) also sup-
port this interpretation. Congress consistently has acted to
promote greater participation in reorganization proceed-
ings. Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, for exam-
ple, provided debtors the right to be heard on all issues, but
limited the right of creditors and stockholders to only cer-
tain issues. See 

 (1946 ed.). Section 206 of
the Bankruptcy Act of 1938 broadened participation and
provided that “[the] debtor, the indenture trustees, and any
creditor or stockholder of the debtor shall have the right to
be heard on all matters arising in a proceeding under this
chapter.” §606. Although the 1938 Act allowed a “party in
interest” to intervene “for cause shown,” it permitted only
——————
   4 The phrase “party in interest” appears in other statutory contexts.

The Court’s analysis of the term today does not apply across all other,
unrelated statutory schemes. The term’s meaning elsewhere will turn
on the text, structure, context, history, and purpose of those statutory
provisions, just as it does here. Still, precedent confirms that this Court’s
interpretation of §1109(b) is not an outlier. See, e.g., Western Pacific Cal-
ifornia R. Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 

, 51–52 (1931) (com-
petitor railroad was a “party in interest” under the Transportation Act
of 1920 because the challenged railroad expansion had the potential to
“directly and adversely affect the complainant’s welfare by bringing
about some material change in the transportation situation”); L. Singer
& Sons v. Union Pacific R. Co., 

 (1940) (food vendors
were not a “party in interest” under the Transportation Act of 1920 be-
cause a “person engaged in business within or adjacent to a public mar-
ket” was only “indirectly and consequentially affected” by a railroad
“seeking only to serve a competing market by means of an extension”);
Alton R. Co. v. United States, 

, 19–20 (1942) (railroad com-
panies were “parties in interest” under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935
because they were “directly affected by competition with the motor
transport industry”).
10   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM CO.

                      Opinion of the Court

the four named parties to intervene as of right. Still, the
Advisory Committee’s Note to Former Chapter X, Bkrtcy.
Rule 10–210(a) (1976), which implemented §206, noted that
the section “was originally enacted to broaden the practice
that had developed upon former §77 . . . . This broader con-
cept was to insure fair representation and to prevent exces-
sive control over the proceedings by insider groups.” 11
U. S. C. App., p. 1445 (1976 ed.).
   In 1978, Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Code contain-
ing §1109(b), which continued the expansion of participa-
tory rights in reorganization proceedings. Congress moved
from an exclusive list to the general and capacious term
“party in interest,” accompanied by a nonexhaustive list of
parties in interest. These parties “may raise and may ap-
pear and be heard on any issue.” 

(b). “Sec-
tion 206 . . . and Chapter X Rule 10–210(a), the predecessor
provisions of section 1109(b) of the Code, constituted an ef-
fort to encourage and promote greater participation in reor-
ganization cases. . . . Section 1109(b) continues in this tra-
dition and should be understood in the same way.” In re
Amatex Corp., 

 (CA3 1985).
   Now consider the purpose of §1109(b). Broad participa-
tion promotes a fair and equitable reorganization process.
The Bankruptcy Code seeks to prevent “the danger inher-
ent in any reorganization plan proposed by a debtor” that
“the plan will simply turn out to be too good a deal for the
debtor’s owners.” Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav.
Assn. v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 

 (1999); see also 

 (discussing Congress’s con-
cern that “ ‘a few insiders, whether representatives of man-
agement or major creditors, [could] use the reorganization
process to gain an unfair advantage’ ”). Section 1109(b) ad-
dresses this concern. “[D]rafters and early commentators
hoped that an expansive definition [of “party in interest” in
§1109(b)] would allow a broad range of individual and mi-
                  Cite as: 

 (2024)             11

                      Opinion of the Court

nority interests to intervene in Chapter 11 cases, and ex-
pressly warned that undue restrictions on who may be a
party in interest might enable dominant interests to control
the restructuring process.” D. Dick, The Chapter 11 Effi-
ciency Fallacy, 2013 B. Y. U. L. Rev. 759, 774–775 (2014).
In short, §1109(b) was “designed to serve . . . the policies of
inclusion underlying the chapter 11 process.” 7 Collier on
Bankruptcy ¶1109.02.
                                 B
   Applying these principles, the Court holds that insurers
such as Truck with financial responsibility for bankruptcy
claims are parties in interest.
   Bankruptcy reorganization proceedings can affect an in-
surer’s interests in myriad ways. A reorganization plan can
impair an insurer’s contractual right to control settlement
or defend claims. A plan can abrogate an insurer’s right to
contribution from other insurance carriers. Or, as alleged
here, a plan may be collusive, in violation of the debtor’s
duty to cooperate and assist, and impair the insurer’s finan-
cial interests by inviting fraudulent claims. The list goes
on. See, e.g., Brief for American Property Casualty Insur-
ance Association et al. as Amici Curiae 16–17 (American
Property Brief) (“For example, a plan that purports to main-
tain an insurer’s coverage defenses could nonetheless allow
claims at amounts far above their actual value and out of
line with the claimants’ injuries or the payment of claims
for which little to no proof of injury is required”). An insurer
with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims can be
directly and adversely affected by the reorganization pro-
ceedings in these and many other ways, making it a “party
in interest” in those proceedings.
   Take Truck, for example. Truck will have to pay the vast
majority of the Trust’s liability—up to $500,000 per claim
for thousands of covered asbestos-injury claims. The pro-
posed Plan would have Truck stand alone in carrying the
12   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM CO.

                      Opinion of the Court

financial burden, because the §524(g) channeling injunction
“permanently and forever stay[s], restrain[s] and enjoin[s]”
any action against Debtors, App. to Pet. for Cert. 178a, and
other “[e]ntities, other than Asbestos Insurers,” id., at 201a.
According to Truck, however, a plan that lacks the disclo-
sure requirements for the uninsured claims risks exposing
Truck “to millions of dollars in fraudulent tort claims.” 

. That potential financial harm—attributable
to Truck’s status as an insurer with financial responsibility
for bankruptcy claims—gives Truck an interest in bank-
ruptcy proceedings and whatever reorganization plan is
proposed and eventually adopted.
   The Government frames Truck’s interest in a slightly dif-
ferent but substantively identical way. According to the
Government, Truck is a party in interest because it “is a
party to a contract with the debtor that is property of the
estate and may be interpreted, assigned, or otherwise af-
fected by the Chapter 11 proceedings.” Brief for United
States as Amicus Curiae 13. This is just another side of the
same coin. Those executory contracts are the ones that give
insurers an interest in the proceedings and, in this case,
make Truck financially responsible for the bankruptcy
claims. So, whether Truck’s direct interest is framed as its
executory contracts or instead its obligations resulting from
those contracts, it cashes out in the same way: Where a pro-
posed plan “allows a party to put its hands into other peo-
ple’s pockets, the ones with the pockets are entitled to be
fully heard and to have their legitimate objections ad-
dressed.” In re Global Indus. Technologies, Inc., 

 (CA3 2011).
   This opportunity to be heard is consistent with §1109(b)’s
purpose. In this case, neither the Debtors nor the Claim-
ants have an incentive to limit the postconfirmation cost of
defending or paying claims. For the Debtors, the Plan elim-
inates all of their ongoing liability. The Claimants simi-
larly have little incentive to propose barriers to their ability
                  Cite as: 

 (2024)           13

                      Opinion of the Court

to recover from Truck. Truck may well be the only entity
with an incentive to identify problems with the Plan. This
“realignment of the insured’s economic incentives . . .
makes participation in the bankruptcy by insurers—who
will ultimately be asked to foot the bill for most or all of
those claims—critical.” American Property Brief 15–16.
                              III
   The Court of Appeals looked exclusively to whether the
Plan altered Truck’s contract rights or its “quantum of lia-
bility.” Under this approach, known as the “insurance neu-
trality” doctrine, courts ask if the plan “increase[s] the in-
surer’s pre-petition obligations or impair[s] the insurer’s
pre-petition policy rights.” 

. This doc-
trine is conceptually wrong and makes little practical sense.
   Conceptually, the insurance neutrality doctrine conflates
the merits of an objection with the threshold party in inter-
est inquiry. The §1109(b) inquiry asks whether the reor-
ganization proceedings might affect a prospective party, not
how a particular reorganization plan actually affects that
party. Indeed, §1109(b) cannot “depend on a plan-specific
rule—that standard would be unusable for the Code provi-
sions empowering a party in interest to request acts unre-
lated to a specific plan or that occur before a plan is con-
firmed or even proposed.” Reply Brief 11; see also supra, at
3 (a party in interest, for example, can file a Chapter 11
plan when a trustee has been appointed or request the ap-
pointment and removal of a trustee). Practically, the insur-
ance neutrality doctrine is too limited in its scope. It zooms
in on the insurer’s prepetition obligations and policy rights.
That wrongly ignores all the other ways in which bank-
ruptcy proceedings and reorganization plans can alter and
impose obligations on insurers. See supra, at 11–12.
   In defending the decision below, the Debtors and Claim-
ants contend that Truck faces similar exposure in the tort
system before and after bankruptcy, in part because Truck
14   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. KAISER GYPSUM CO.

                          Opinion of the Court

was not entitled to the disclosure provisions before the
bankruptcy. That may be so, but this argument suffers
from the same flaw identified above—at bottom, it concerns
the merits of whether the Plan should include the disclo-
sure provisions for insured claims in accordance with
§§524(g) and 1129. See supra, at 5–6 (describing Truck’s
objections). Whether and how the particular proposed Plan
here affects Truck’s prepetition and postpetition obligations
and exposure is not the question. The fact that Truck’s fi-
nancial exposure may be directly and adversely affected by
a plan is sufficient to give Truck (and other insurers with
financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims) a right to
voice its objections in reorganization proceedings. The
Debtors’ and Claimants’ argument also ignores the practi-
cal and legal consequences of the Debtors’ bankruptcy pro-
ceedings and reorganization plan. They transformed the
Debtors’ asbestos liabilities into bankruptcy claims that
Truck will now have to indemnify through the Trust with-
out the protections of disclosure requirements in place for
uninsured claims filed directly with the Trust.
   Finally, in resisting the text of §1109(b), the Debtors em-
phasize the risk of allowing “ ‘peripheral parties’ to derail a
reorganization.” Brief for Debtor-Side Respondents 33. To
start, a “parade of horribles” argument generally cannot
“surmount the plain language of the statute.” Arthur An-
dersen LLP v. Carlisle, 

 (2009). Moreover,
§1109(b) provides parties in interest only an opportunity to
be heard—not a vote or a veto in the proceedings.5 In all
events, the Court today does not opine on the outer bounds
of §1109. Of course, a party in interest is “not intended to
——————
   5 Bankruptcy courts also have equitable discretion to control participa-

tion in a proceeding. See, e.g., 

(a) (“No provision of [the
Code] providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be
construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or
making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or imple-
ment court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process”).
                 Cite as: 

 (2024)                 15

                     Opinion of the Court

include literally every conceivable entity that may be in-
volved in or affected by the chapter 11 proceedings.” 7 Col-
lier on Bankruptcy ¶1109.03. There may be difficult cases
that require courts to evaluate whether truly peripheral
parties have a sufficiently direct interest. This case is not
one of them. Insurers such as Truck with financial respon-
sibility for claims are not peripheral parties.
                        *     *    *
  Section 1109(b) provides parties in interest a voice in
bankruptcy proceedings. An insurer with financial respon-
sibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” that
may object to a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
  The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                                  It is so ordered.

  JUSTICE ALITO took no part in the consideration or deci-
sion of this case.