evidence from Hava that she acted properly and requiring Trustee to prove that she acted improperly is too large for us to ignore. VII. Trustee further contends that the bankruptcy court was wrong to dismiss on summary judgment the contention that Bay Island’s claim on Debtor’s assets should be equitably subordinated. We decline to reverse the bankruptcy court on this ground. A creditor’s claim can generally be subordinated under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c) if three circumstances are satisfied: (1) the claimant engaged in inequitable conduct; (2) that conduct injured other creditors; and (3) subordination is consistent with other bankruptcy law. In re ASI Reactivation, Inc., 934 F.2d 1315, 1320 (4th Cir.1991); see also U.S. v. Noland, 517 U.S. 535, 538-39, 116 S.Ct. 1524, 134 L.Ed.2d 748 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Trustee suggests three grounds on which Bay
recognizing that equitable doctrines such as subordination are available for use in some bankruptcy cases recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results holding that  510c was intended to incorporate existing doctrine of equitable subordination as exemplified by in re mobile steel co 563 f2d 692 5th cir1977 holding that application of equitable tolling doctrine was appropriate as to statute of limitations in abatement and refund proceedings under cireumstances in that case recognizing doctrine