In re AMR Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a three-month delay after learning of a missed deadline was an unreasonable delay in applying the Pioneer factors
• noting that a creditor who was sophisticated, represented by counsel, and aware of the chapter 11 cases by virtue of an automatic stay put in place on its prepetition litigation should have monitored the bankruptcy case and docket
• finding denial of receipt without evidence of a “formal tracking system” for incoming mail insufficient to rebut presumption
• accounting for a movant’s status as a “sophisticated party” with counsel in finding that movant had a duty to monitor the bankruptcy case
• rejecting the argument that judicial administration of the chapter 11 case would not be impacted because the debtors had not filed a plan and disclosure statement at the time the movant filed its motion
• deeming a request to file a late claim five months after the bar date order and more than three months after the bar date “significant” for its potential impact on the judicial administration of the debtors’ cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Greenberg
  E.D. New York· 2015-02-27· cited 11×
• In re Motors Liquidation Co.
  S.D. New York· 2019-03-22· cited 9×
• In re Queen Elizabeth Realty Corp.
  S.D. Illinois· 2018-03-08· cited 8×
• In re Manhattan Jeep Chrysler Dodge, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2019-04-03· cited 4×
• In re Spenlinhauer
  D. Massachusetts· 2017-09-08· cited 3×
• In re Republic Airways Holdings Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2017-08-28· cited 2×
• In re Motors Liquidation Co.
  S.D. New York· 2019-05-28· cited 2×
• In re Residential Capital, LLC
  S.D. New York· 2015-08-04· cited 1×

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
  Supreme Court· 1950-06-05· cited 10,395×
• Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership
  Supreme Court· 1993-03-24· cited 5,239×
• Hagner v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1932-04-11· cited 954×
• City of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
  Supreme Court· 1953-01-12· cited 500×
• In Re: Enron Corp. Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership v. Enron Corp., the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Movant
  Second Circuit· 2005-08-16· cited 249×
• American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Nordic Leasing, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 1994-12-09· cited 84×
• In Re Robinson
  E.D. New York· 1998-12-11· cited 69×
• In Re Best Products Co., Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1992-05-15· cited 64×
• First Fidelity Bank, N.A. v. Hooker Investments, Inc. (In re Hooker Investments, Inc.)
  Second Circuit· 1991-06-28· cited 45×
• In Re RH MacY & Co., Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1993-11-30· cited 44×
• Dependable Insurance Co. v. Horton (In Re Horton)
  S.D. New York· 1992-12-18· cited 30×
• Trump Taj Mahal Associates v. Alibraham (In Re Trump Taj Mahal Associates)
  D. New Jersey· 1993-07-01· cited 29×
• Linder v. Trump's Castle Associates
  D. New Jersey· 1993-06-07· cited 27×
• Unnamed case
  Second Circuit· 2007-01-17· cited 23×
• Wright v. Placid Oil Co.
  N.D. Texas· 1989-10-11· cited 21×
• Grant v. U.S. Home Corp. (In re U.S.H. Corp.)
  S.D. New York· 1998-08-12· cited 21×
• Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Malandra (In Re Malandra)
  E.D. New York· 1997-03-31· cited 20×
• Joslin v. Wechsler (In Re Wechsler)
  S.D. New York· 2000-03-31· cited 9×
• U.K. Northridge, Inc. v. Au Coton, Inc. (In Re Au Coton, Inc.)
  S.D. New York· 1994-07-26· cited 9×

Other cases named In re AMR Corp.

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• In re AMR Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2012-08-15· cited 20×
• In re AMR Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2012-09-13· cited 5×
• In re AMR Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2016-12-23· cited 4×
• In re AMR Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2013-09-13· cited 2×
• In re AMR Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2013-04-11· cited 1×