transferee will not be applied to good faith open market purchasers of claims. 77 . 11 U.S.C. § 510(c). 78 . See Noland, 517 U.S. at 539, 116 S.Ct. 1524. 79 . 124 Cong. Rec. 32398 (Rep.Edwards); id. at 33998 (Sen.DeConcini). The juxtaposition between the two clauses of this statement also highlights the focus on the holder in this context. According to the legislative history, die two circumstances where equitable subordination would be present are: (1) if the holder has acted inequitably, or (2) the claim itself is historically subject to subordination, such as penalties (i.e., punitive claims, which are generally disfavored as against claims for actual losses) or shareholder claims alleging fraud by the debtor. See, e.g., In re Stirling Homex Corp., 579 F.2d 206, 213 (2d Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). The present appeal does not involve any
holding that the receiver for a corporation had no standing to sue for inter alia receipt of funds fraudulently obtained fraud and unjust enrichment even though he was appointed on behalf of all the creditors because those were claims of the creditors not of the corporation holding that classification of claims or interests must be reasonable and recognizing reasonableness of distinguishing trade creditors claims holding that a credible basis was established based on the shareholders claims holding that plaintiff could bring generalized civil claims even though administrative charge included only particularized claims since both complaints alleged age discrimination based on similar conduct holding that the claims of defrauded shareholders could be subordinated to the claims of general creditors even though both were presumably innocent