court broad authority to exercise its equitable powers—where necessary and appropriate to facilitate the implementation of other Bankruptcy Code provisions.” Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek (In re Nosek), 544 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir.2008) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, while § 105(a) vests bankruptcy courts with inherent power to sanction parties for improper conduct, it “does not authorize the bankruptcy courts to create substantive rights that are otherwise unavailable under applicable law.” Pertuso, 233 F.3d at 423, fn. 1, quoting United Sates v. Sutton, 786 F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir.1986). Bankruptcy courts have used their authority to impose contempt sanctions pursuant to § 105 in a variety of circumstances. Hardy v. U.S. (In re Hardy), 97 F.3d 1384, 1389-90 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); In re Latanowich, 207 B.R. 326, 333
recognizing equitable powers necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title holding that section 105 grants statutory contempt powers in the bankruptcy context that may be used to award monetary and other forms of relief for automatic stay violations to the extent such awards are necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of the bankruptcy code holding that the bankruptcy court relinquishes jurisdiction over estate property when it grants relief from the automatic stay recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy recognizing power of bankruptcy court under  105 of the code and bankruptcy rule 9020 to impose contempt sanctions for violations of automatic stay