can substantially similar claims be separately classified? That situation was dealt with in Teamsters Nat’l Freight Indus. Negotiating Comm. v. U.S. Truck Co. (In re U.S. Truck Co.), 800 F.2d 581, 586 (6th Cir. 1986), where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said: There must be some limit on a debtor’s power to classify creditors in such a manner. The potential for abuse would be significant otherwise. Unless there is some requirement of keeping similar claims together, nothing would stand in the way of a debtor seeking out a few impaired creditors (or even one such creditor) who will vote for the plan and placing them in them own class. Other circuits agree. See Boston Post Road Ltd. Partnership v. F.D.I.C. (In re Boston Post Road Ltd. Partnership), 21 F.3d 477, 483 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Route 37
holding that medical expenses must be proven to be both reasonable and necessary holding that a legitimate reason other than creation of impaired assenting class must be proven for separate classification to be allowed holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence