An expression of this policy is found at 11 U.S.C. § 726(b) which provides in essence that all claimants, including administrative claimants, whose claims are accrued in the same chapter shall be reimbursed pro rata. Consistently with this policy, all administrative expenses are on parity as to payment.” In other words, to allow Debtor’s counsel to collect more than the other administrative claimants is a violation of the equality of distribution required under 11 U.S.C. § 726(b). There is no priority among administrative claimants. In re Grigg Clothing Co., 62 B.R. 1016 (Bankr.D.S.D.1986). Debtor’s counsel argues that disgorgement is discretionary and urges the Court to so hold. See United States v. Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn (In re Unitcast, Inc.), 219 B.R. 741 (6th Cir. BAP 1998)(<HOLDING>). We agree that disgorgement is discretionary
holding that  726b does not compel disgorgement from professionals in every case of administrative insolvency but is a remedy within the discretion of the bankruptcy court under  330 and 331 holding that denial of amendment is within discretion of trial court holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar a bankruptcy court from issuing a money judgment against a state under the bankruptcy code