Opinion ID: 3010612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consistency with the Code

Text: Finally, a remedy of equitable subordination under S 510(c) must not be inconsistent with other provisions of the bankruptcy code. This requirement has been read as a `reminder to the bankruptcy court that although it is a court of equity, it is not free to adjust the legally valid claim of an innocent party who asserts the claim in good faith merely because the court perceives the result is inequitable.'  Noland, 517 U.S. at 539 (quoting DeNatale & Abram, The Doctrine of Equitable Subordination as Applied to Nonmanagement Creditors, 40 Bus. Law 417, 428 (1985). CVC makes the argument that other provisions of the bankruptcy code, including those related to voting of claims and transfer of claims, provide all the remedy necessary for inappropriate insider activity. While these provisions may also be applicable, we perceive no reason why the availability of alternative remedies makes equitable subordination under S 510(c) incompatible with the Code under the circumstances of this case.