of an additional committee in such a situation. These courts rely upon the inherent power of judicial review over acts of the U.S. Trustee as well as relying upon the equitable powers granted to the courts under 11 U.S.C. see. 105. See, e.g., In re Value Merchants, Inc., 202 B.R. 280, 287-88 (E.D.Wis.1996); In re Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 200 B.R. 933, 939-40 (M.D.Fla.1996); In re Barney’s, Inc., 197 B.R. 431, 439 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996); In re Plabell Rubber Products, 140 B.R. 179, 180 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1992); In re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 89 B.R. 1014, 1020-21 (Bankr.D.N.H.1988). “[I]f there is an objection to the act of the United States Trustee, there must be an ability to resort to the court; absent very specific and direct language, one should not concl 39 (9th Cir. BAP 1992)(<HOLDING>); In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 118
holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee holding that the power to appoint and delete members of the committee now resides exclusively with the us trustee recognizing power of appointment does not rest exclusively in any one branch