You have clearly stated a part of your model:
C depends on B, in that values of B above a threshold will change C. The change in C will furthermore reduce B in the next measurement.
By "next measurement" I understand you mean next in time. Let's index time as $t = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$. Then the dependence of C on B sounds like a contemporaneous one. If we adopt a simple linear model (which can readily be expanded to incorporate covariates and variable but predetermined thresholds) and let $u$ be a constant threshold,
$$C(t) = \beta_1 I_{B(t) \gt u} + \epsilon$$
with random deviations $\epsilon$ (which I won't bother to index; you know the drill). Here, $I$ is the indicator function.
Also,
$$B(t+1) = B(t) - \beta_2 (C(t) - C(t-1)) + \delta$$
and again $\delta$ represents random (independent) deviations. I'm stuck here because you haven't specified more precisely just how B changes in response to a change in C; I have merely provided one possible interpretation.
Finally,
$$A(t) = \beta_3 B(t) + \beta_4 C(t) + \beta_5 + \gamma$$
with independent random deviations $\gamma$.
The presence of that indicator function in the first formula is problematic: it makes this a nonlinear problem. However, this seems to be an essential feature of the situation; I would be loth to ignore it in the name of simplicity or ease of calculation (although both are important considerations). The lags $B(t+1) - B(t)$ and $C(t) - C(t-1)$ also point towards autoregressive models, another complication. Because of these issues, the most tractable approach might be with Bayesian techniques: parameterize the distributions of $\epsilon$, $\delta$, and $\gamma$, provide priors for those parameters and the $\beta$s, and let the machinery (e.g., WinBUGS or RBUGS) roll.