of the Debtor’s bad acts does not mandate that this Court restrict the scope of its findings. In determining whether appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee was warranted, this Court was required to consider the totality of the circumstances. Each of the findings contained in the Trustee Order were relevant to this Court’s determination that the Debtor’s conduct manifested the extreme circumstances that are a prerequisite to appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee pursuant to both § 1104(a)(1) and § 1104(a)(2). Accordingly, this Court believes that its decision to include all of its relevant findings, rather than some subset, does not constitute indisputable error. The Debtor’s appeal to equity is without merit. See, e.g., In re Combustion Engineering, Inc., 391 F.3d 190 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). This Court can identify no principle that
recognizing derivative standing that bankruptcy courts can authorize holding that mere procedural changes which do not affect substantive rights are not immune from retrospective application recognizing that a bankruptcys equitable powers provided by  105 do not authorize the bankruptcy courts to create substantive rights that are otherwise unavailable under applicable law or constitute a roving commission to do equity holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief holding that similar doj guidelines not mandated by statute or the constitution do not confer substantive rights on any party