In Re: Sgl Carbon Corporation Official Committee of Unsecureds’s Empirical Analysis
200 F.3d 154 · 1999
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably In re Combustion Engineering, Inc. (2004), Tamecki v. Frank (2000)
16 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. · General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 94-1064 94-1194 94-1195 94-1198 94-1202 94-1203 94-1207 94-1208 94-1219
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“: Though it suggests that the debtor's subjective intent is determinative, this is not the case. Instead, the”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reaching our conclusion, we are cognizant that it is growing increasingly difficult to settle large scale litigation .... We recognize that companies that face massive potential liability and litigation costs continue to seek ways to rapidly conclude litigation to enable a continuation of their business and to maintain access to the capital markets. As evidenced by SGL Carbon’s actions in this case, the Bankruptcy Code presents an inviting safe harbor for such companies. But this lure creates the possibility of abuse which must be guarded against to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy system and the rights of all involved in such proceedings. Allowing SGL Carbon’s bankruptcy under these circumstances seems to us a significant departure from the use of Chapter 11 to validly reorganize financially troubled businesses.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is easy to see why courts have required Chapter 11 petitioners to act within the scope of the bankruptcy laws to further a valid reorganizational purpose. Chapter 11 vests petitioners with considerable powers — the automatic stay, the exclusive right to propose a reorganization plan, the discharge of debts, etc. — that can impose significant hardship on particular creditors. When financially troubled petitioners seek a chance to remain in business, the exercise of those powers is justified. But this is not so when a petitioner’s aims lie outside those of the Bankruptcy Code.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.