a debtor may separately classify creditors, that separate classification alone does not determine whether the plan discriminates unfairly. Several courts have outlined a four-part test used to determine whether discrimination is unfair, the Court adopts a broader approach as set forth in In re Aztec Co., 107 B.R. 585, 588-91 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1989) (providing excellent summary of case law). The debtor offers no reasonable basis for the discriminatory treatment in favor of Metro North. Factually and legally, Metro North is just another unsecured creditor. While separate classification might be justified on legal or factual grounds, in the absence of grounds, separate classification and better treatment is improper discrimination. See Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d at 139 (<HOLDING>); In re General Homes Corp., 134 B.R. at 863.
holding that classification of claims or interests must be reasonable and recognizing reasonableness of distinguishing trade creditors claims holding nonsuit does not frustrate purpose of bankruptcy stay which is to protect the debtor against further actions and to ensure equal treatment of creditors recognizing that trade creditors might be separately classified at treated better in order to ensure the debtor can maintain future operations recognizing that the venire may be separately sworn recognizing that debtors failure to provide creditors information about business operations justified appointment of trustee