Cutright v. United States

noting division in judicial interpretation but following expansive reading of § 506(c) | "[T]hou shalt not classify similar claims differently in order to gerrymander an affirmative vote on a reorganization plan." | day of alleged unlawful arrest was the day of accrual of plaintiffs claims contrary to plaintiffs contention that his claims accrued on the date of his arraignment | day of alleged unlawful arrest was the day of accrual of plaintiff's claims contrary to plaintiff's contention that his claims accrued on the date of his arraignment | “[T]hou shalt not classify similar claims differently in order to gerrymander an affirmative vote on a reorganization plan.” | Purpose of equivalency requirement ensures that “equity holders will not eviscerate the absolute priority rule by means of gratuitous, token cash infusions proposed primarily to ‘buy’ cheap financing.” | “Classification of claims ... affects the integrity of the voting process, for, if claims could be arbitrarily placed in separate classes, it would almost always be possible for the debtor to manipulate ‘acceptance’ by artful classification.”