The record reflects the Intercompany Claim does not, and was not intended to, rank paripassu with the unsecured debt claims against SSC Canada and should be valued at zero dollars. The Intercompany Claim does not have similar legal attributes as the General Unsecured Claims against SSC Canada and does not have the same rights against the estate of SSC Canada. Thus, the Intercompany Claim is sufficiently different from the General Unsecured Claims against SSC Canada to justify separate classification of the Intercompany Claim pursuant to section 1122(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.Even if the Intercompany Claim were sufficiently "substantially similar" to the General Unsecured Claims against SSC Canada to permit the Debtors to classify the Intercompany Claim in Class 15D, separate classification of substantially similar claims is permitted under section 1122(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The classification of the Intercompany Claim is reasonable and not arbitrary, and complies with section 1122(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. SeeIn re Jersey City Med. Ctr., 817 F.2d 1055, 1060-61 (3d Cir. 1987); seealsoIn re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., No. 02-10429 (JKF), 7312, 2006 WL 616243 *5-6 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 6, 2006).
'Courts of bankruptcy are essentially courts of equity, and their proceedings inherently are proceedings in equity.'
