for the separate classification. This inquiry includes, inter alia, consideration of how many claims fall within the class, the individual amounts of those claims, the total amount of claims within the class, the debtor’s financial wherewithal to pay them at an accelerated rate, and a present value comparison of the payments to be received by the administrative convenience class and the general unsecured creditors. See Oxford Life Ins. Co. v. Tucson Self-Storage, Inc. (In re Tucson Self-Storage, Inc.), 166 B.R. 892, 898 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) (separate classification of four unsecured trade creditors owed $2,124.27 and paid sixty days after the effective date could not be justified as an impaired administrative convenience); In re Autterson, 547 B.R. 372, 396 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2016) (<HOLDING>); In re New Bride Missionary Baptist Church,
holding that an agency filing deadline set forth in a regulation as a rule of administrative convenience is not jurisdictional holding the separate classification of one purported administrative convenience claim can never be reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience holding that determination of public convenience and necessity by the public service commission was an issue of fact which warranted substantial judicial deference to the factfinding processes of the administrative agency holding that a plaintiff was not obligated to apply for a certificate of convenience and necessity and submit to the administrative procedures incident thereto before bringing an action holding that the convenience of the witnesses has less relevance where the case involved judicial review of an administrative decision