“need only show some unfair conduct, and a degree of culpability, on the part of the insider.” Id. (citations omitted). “Inequitable conduct for subordination purposes encompasses the breach of fiduciary duties.” Wilson v. Moir (In re Wilson), 359 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2006). See also Hovis v. Powers Constr. Co., Inc., (In re Hoffman Ass., Inc.), 194 B.R. 943, 965 (D.S.C.1995) (“The inequitable conduct of the claimant under § 510(c) generally involves conduct such as ... breach of fiduciary duty.”). In addition to affirmative actions, a failure to act appropriately may constitute inequitable conduct sufficient for the purposes of equitable subordination. See Miller v. Greenwich Fin. Prods., Inc. (In re Am. Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc.), 362 B.R. 149, 164-65 (Bankr.D.Del.2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Court has determined supra that the
holding that a failure to service   loan portfolios properly constitutes inequitable conduct sufficient to warrant equitable subordination holding that failure to brief an argument constitutes waiver holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver recognizing that although provision of municipal service is not fundamental right inequitable provision of that service is subject to equal protection analysis holding failure to brief argument constitutes waiver