met. The relevant one here is (a)(8), which mandates that all impaired classes vote in favor of the Plan. The plan proponent may avoid that requirement by proposing confirmation under § 1129(b). That section imposes the same requirements as § 1129(a), except for (a)(8), but requires that the plan: 1) “not discriminate unfairly”; and 2) be “fair and equitable, with respect to each class of claims or interests that is impaired under, and has not accepted the plan,” and further requires that at least one impaired class vote in favor of the plan. Debtor seeks approval of its Plan under § 1129(b)’s “cram down” provision. MSHDA, as the sole holder of the impaired Class 2 claim, has stated its intention to vote in favor of th (In re Bryson Properties, XVIII), 961 F.2d 496, 502 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. (hey-stone III
holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members holding that  1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent holding that separate classification of similar claims is allowed but only for reasons independent of the debtors motivation to secure the vote of an impaired assenting class of claims holding that classification of claims or interests must be reasonable and recognizing reasonableness of distinguishing trade creditors claims