Whether an industrial enterprise in the United States is highly successful is often gauged by its ‘‘membership’’ in what has come to be known as the ‘‘Fortune 500.’’ Having attained this measure of financial achievement, Johns Manville Corp. and its affiliated companies (collectively referred to as ‘‘Manville’’) were deemed a paradigm of success in corporate America by the financial community. Thus, Manville’s filing for protection under Chapter 11 * * * of the United States Code (‘‘the Code or the Bankruptcy Code’’) on August 26, 1982 (‘‘the filing date’’) was greeted with great surprise and consternation on the part of some of its creditors and other corporations that were being sued along with Manville for injuries caused by asbestos exposure. As discussed at length herein, Manville submits that the sole factor necessitating its filing is the mammoth problem of uncontrolled proliferation of asbestos health suits brought against it because of its substantial use for many years of products containing asbestos which injured those who came into contact with the dust of this lethal substance. According to Manville, this current problem of approximately 16,000 lawsuits pending as of the filing date is compounded by the crushing economic burden to be suffered by Manville over the next 20–30 years by the filing of an even more staggering number of suits by those who had been exposed but who will not manifest the asbestos-related diseases until some time during this future period (‘‘the future asbestos claimants’’). Indeed, approximately 6,000 asbestos health claims are estimated to have arisen in only the first 16 months since the filing date. This burden is further compounded by the insurance industry’s general disavowal of liability to Manville on policies written for this very purpose. * * *

   It is the propriety of the filing by Manville which is the subject of the instant decision. Four separate motions to dismiss the petition * * * have been lodged before this Court.

***

   Preliminarily, it must be stated that there is no question that Manville is eligible to be a debtor under the Code’s statutory requirements.

***

   Moreover, it should also be noted that [no] * * * provision relating to voluntary petitions by companies contains any insolvency requirement.

***

   A ‘‘principal goal’’ of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide ‘‘open access’’ to the ‘‘bankruptcy process.’’ [Citation.] The rationale behind this ‘‘open access’’ policy is to provide access to bankruptcy relief which is as ‘‘open’’ as ‘‘access to the credit economy.’’ [Citation.] Thus, Congress intended that ‘‘there should be no legal barrier to voluntary petitions.’’ [Citation.] Another major goal of the Code, that of ‘‘rehabilitation of debtors,’’ requires that relief for debtors must be ‘‘timely.’’ [Citation.] * * *

   Accordingly, the drafters of the Code envisioned that a financially beleaguered debtor with real debt and real creditors should not be required to wait until the economic situation is beyond repair in order to file a reorganization petition. The ‘‘Congressional purpose’’ in enacting the Code was to encourage resort to the bankruptcy process. [Citation.] This philosophy not only comports with the elimination of an insolvency requirement, but also is a corollary of the key aim of Chapter 11 of the Code, that of avoidance of liquidation. The drafters of the Code announced this goal, declaring that reorganization is more efficient than liquidation because ‘‘assets that are used for production in the industry for which they were designed are more valuable than those same assets sold for scrap.’’ [Citation.] Moreover, reorganization also fosters the goals of preservation of jobs in the threatened entity. [Citation.]

   In the instant case, not only would liquidation be wasteful and inefficient in destroying the utility of valuable assets of the companies as well as jobs, but, more importantly, liquidation would preclude just compensation of some present asbestos victims and all future asbestos claimants. This unassailable reality represents all the more reason for this Court to adhere to this basic potential liquidation avoidance aim of Chapter 11 and deny the motions to dismiss. Manville must not be required to wait until its economic picture has deteriorated beyond salvation to file for reorganization.

***

   In [this case] it is undeniable that there has been no sham or hoax perpetrated on the Court in that Manville is a real business with real creditors in pressing need of economic reorganization. Indeed, the Asbestos Committee has belied its own contention that Manville has no debt and no real creditors by quantifying a benchmark settlement demand approaching one billion dollars for compensation of approximately 15,500 pre-petition asbestos claimants, during the course of negotiations pitched toward achieving a consensual plan. This huge asserted liability does not even take into account the estimated 6,000 new asbestos health claims which have arisen in only the first 16 months since the filing date. The number of post-filing claims increases each day as ‘‘future claims back into the present.’’ * * *

   Moreover, asbestos related property damage claims present another substantial contingent and unliquidated liability. Prior to the filing date, various schools initiated litigation seeking compensatory and punitive damages from * * * Manville for their unknowing use of asbestos-containing products in ceilings, walls, structural members, piping, ductwork and boilers in school buildings.

***

   In short, there was justification for Manville to elect a course contemplating a viable court-supervised rehabilitation of the real debt owed by Manville to its real creditors. Manville’s filing did not in the appropriate sense abuse the jurisdiction of this Court and it is indeed, like the debtor in (citation), a ‘‘once viable business supporting employees and unsecured creditors (which) has more recently been burdened with judgments (and suits) that threaten to put it out of existence.’’ * * * [Citation.] Thus, its petition must be sustained.

***

   In sum, Manville is a financially besieged enterprise in desperate need of reorganization of its crushing real debt, both present and future. The reorganization provisions of the Code were drafted with the aim of liquidation avoidance by great access to Chapter 11. Accordingly, Manville’s filing does not abuse the jurisdictional integrity of this Court, but rather presents the same kinds of reasons that were present in [citation], for awaiting the determination of Manville’s good faith until it is considered * * * as a prerequisite to confirmation or as a part of the cadre of motions before me which are scheduled to be heard subsequently.

   [Motions to dismiss the Manville petition denied.]