more than sufficient to satisfy due process requirements and hence, if the Plaintiffs’ were “unknown” creditors at the time of the Bar Order, their claims are now barred. See New York, 344 U.S. at 296, 73 S.Ct. 299 (in providing notice to unknown creditors, constructive notice of the bar claims date by publication satisfies the requirements of due process); Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341, 348-49 (3d Cir.1995) (“Publication in national newspapers is regularly deemed sufficient notice to unknown creditors, especially where supplemented, as here, with notice in papers of general circulation in locations where the debtor is conducting business”), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1137, 116 S.Ct. 1424, 134 L.Ed.2d 548 (1996). See, e.g., Brown v. Seaman Furniture Co., 171 B.R. 26 (E.D.Pa.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
holding that evidence of publication in local newspapers precludes defense of lack of notice of receivership holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding publication in local and national editions of the new york times sufficient notice to claimant in pennsylvania 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 holding that notice published in the new york times and the wall street journal was sufficient to satisfy due process owed to unknown creditors