Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co., 788 F.2d 1280, 1283 (7th Cir.1986); In re S.N.A. Nut Co., 198 B.R. 541, 543 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1996). Here, the central issue is whether the Plaintiffs were “known” or “unknown” claimants at the time of the Bar Order. As noted above, actual notice is necessary only as to known creditors while constructive notice is sufficient for unknown creditors. See New York, 344 U.S. at 296, 73 S.Ct. 299; In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.R. Co., 974 F.2d 775, 788 (7th Cir.1992). Constructive notice can be satisfied through publication notice since “in the case of persons missing or unknown, employment of an indirect and even probably futile means of notification is all that the situation permits and creates no constitutional bar to a final de .1989) (<HOLDING>); In re Best Products Co., Inc., 140 B.R. 353, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding death caused by unknown object provides sufficient notice (B) holding publication notice in the wall street journal adequate under bankruptcy law (C) holding that governments choice to publish notice in the new york times did not violate statutory publication requirements even though publication in the houston chronicle would have been more likely to provide notice to the claimant (D) holding that notice published in the new york times and the wall street journal was sufficient to satisfy due process owed to unknown creditors (E) holding publication in the wall street journal sufficient notice to unknown creditor injured in louisiana
Output (English): holding that notice published in the new york times and the wall street journal was sufficient to satisfy due process owed to unknown creditors