interests inferior to the unsecured creditors [and, t]hus there should be little difficulty with the absolute priority rule____”). Sweetwater does not dispute that general proposition, but argues that the insider claims in this case should be subordinated to it, and not receive or retain any property since Sweetwater’s claim is not being paid in full. The Court disagrees. Several courts have expressed the opinion that the claim of an insider or equity holder may not be treated unequally unless the insider or equity holder used superior knowledge concerning the debtor’s affairs in an unfair manner or equitable subordination principles otherwise apply. See e.g., In re ARN LTD. Ltd. P’ship, 140 B.R. 5, 13 (Bankr.D.D.C.1992), citing In re Ho-lywell Corp., 913 F.2d 873, 880 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Heritage Org., 375 B.R. at 301 (agreeing that
holding that the mere fact that relevant evidence is shocking to the sensibilities does not make the admission of that evidence a violation of due process holding that the mere fact that a claim is held by an equity security holder does not justify its subordination and insider claims may be equitably subordinated only based on evidence of unfair conduct holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision recognizing that mere passage of time does not make evidence irrelevant as it will also depend on the nature of the evidence and its relation to what is to be proven