even if the Debtor had proposed a plan that properly categorized JJC and RCU’s unsecured claim into one class, it wouldn’t have been confirmed. So long as JJC voted against confirmation, the Plan would not have had the requisite favorable vote from an impaired class. It is possible that Debtor did not intentionally gerrymander votes, but the Debtor’s intent is not relevant. In re Bloomingdale Partners, 170 B.R. at 996 (“[E]very plan proponent ‘gerrymanders’ to some extent; an examination of the plan proponent’s intent is neither helpful nor feasible.”). Rather, the question remains: how “far may the plan proponent go in drawing its boundaries?” Id. Again, the Debtor has not articulated any valid reason for separating the JJC and RCU unsecured claims. They are substantially similar. Id. (<HOLDING>). Without any rationale to support the
holding that the plaintiffs due process claims were completely barred by res judicata because the underlying factual predicate for each of these claims  is substantially identical to the allegations presented in state court holding it is reasonable for the plan proponent to classify claims separately only if these claims are not substantially similar holding that nonmonetary claims are not subject to these requirements recognizing similar problem if fca is applied to claims presented to any federal grantee even if claims are not represented to united states holding based on  1127b that only the proponent  of a chapter 11 reorganization plan can seek to have it modified