and circumstances presented obviously would not be “legitimate.” The standard adopted herein accords with the objective of assessing whether a business or economic justification is legitimate. Vendors holding claims that are separately classified from other unsecured claims must be providing genuine operational or financial benefits to the debtor, and the preferential treatment offered to those vendors must be reasonably calculated to induce their continued support of the debtor. This legal standard also is consistent with authorities from outside the Ninth Circuit holding that the separate classification of trade claims may be justified by a ‘“reasonable purpose,’ legitimate basis or necessary business objective.” See, e.g., In re Jersey Med. Ctr., 817 F.2d 1055, 1061 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); In re One Times Square Assoc. Ltd. P’ship,
holding that classification of claims or interests must be reasonable and recognizing reasonableness of distinguishing trade creditors claims holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal holding that the claims of defrauded shareholders could be subordinated to the claims of general creditors even though both were presumably innocent 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 claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived