the court orally opined that the Avoidance Order was not “artfully drawn.” The court subsequently reviewed the Avoidance Order in concert with an audio recording of the 2013 Hearing and is convinced that the Avoidance Order does not accurately reflect the court’s ruling. 16. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) in conjunction with Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable by Rule 9024 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, “bankruptcy courts, as courts of equity, have the power to reconsider, modify or vacate their previous orders so long as no intervening rights have become vested in reliance on the orders.” Meyer v. Lenox (In re Lenox), 902 F.2d 737, 739-40 (9th Cir.1990); accord In re Renaissance Stone Works, L.L.C., 373 B.R. 817, 822 (E.D.Mich.2007) (<HOLDING>); Marchand v. Waters (In re Waters), 2007 WL
holding a bankruptcy court is empowered to reopen a bankruptcy case on its own motion under 11 usc  105a recognizing bankruptcy courts have the jurisdiction and power under case law and 11 usc  105a to issue injunctions as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate or prevent the frustration of orders that they have previously issued holding that bankruptcy courts have independent authority pursuant to 11 usc  105 and rule 9024 of the federal rules of bankruptcy procedure to reconsider sua sponte their own orders at any time holding that the old inherent power to reconsider bankruptcy orders has been merged into  rule 60b  holding that bankruptcy courts have inherent power and authority under 11 usc  105a to sua sponte reconsider modify or vacate orders previously entered