in that it is not a ‘roving commission to do equity,’ ... a court is well within its authority if it exercises its equitable powers to enforce a specific code provision ... Thus, § 105 does not itself create a private right of action, but a court may invoke § 105 ‘if the equitable remedy utilized is demonstrably necessary to preserve a right elsewhere provided in the Code.’ (citations omitted). The Court acknowledges that many courts have held that § 105 does not create a private cause of action standing alone or in conjunction with other Bankruptcy Code sections. Those cases are not like this one, as this case is based on the use of § 105 in conjunction with the court’s contempt powers. E.g., Joubert v. ABN AMRO Mortg. Group, Inc. (In re Joubert), 411 F.3d 452 (3rd Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 276 F.3d 502
holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for fed r bankrp 2016 violations holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for  524 violations holding that section 105 does not afford a private cause of action for  506bbased issues recognizing private right of action recognizing cause of action