Opinion ID: 2981736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We apply principles of contract interpretation when interpreting a confirmed bankruptcy plan. See In re Dow Corning Corp., 456 F.3d 668, 676 (6th Cir. 2006). New York law governs our interpretation of the Plan and related documents. Id.; Plan § 6.13. Under New York law, the first step in interpreting a contract is to determine whether the contract is ambiguous. See Space Imaging -7- No. 11-2632 In re: Settlement Facility Dow Corning Trust Europe, Ltd. v. Space Imaging L.P., 38 F. Supp. 2d 326, 333-34 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “A contract is not ambiguous when the language in it has a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the contract itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion.” Id. at 334 (quotation marks omitted). “Where an agreement is unambiguous on its face, it must be enforced in accordance with the plain meaning of its terms.” Vintage, LLC v. Laws Const. Corp., 920 N.E. 2d 342, 343 (N.Y. 2009) (mem.). In this case, the district court found that the Funding Agreement is unambiguous. The district court judge whose order Dow is appealing has presided over the Dow Corning settlement since 1995. Another panel of this Court recently discussed the standard of review we apply when reviewing this judge’s determination that a plan document in the Dow Corning bankruptcy is not ambiguous. See In re Settlement Facility Dow Corning Trust, 628 F.3d 769, 77173 (6th Cir. 2010). The majority observed that “[o]ur court is reasonably well-equipped to determine whether a plan provision is ambiguous—we construe contracts all the time.” Id. at 772. But it noted that when slogging through the morass of the Dow Corning settlement, we should recognize this judge’s many years’ experience in exploring this potentially treacherous area. Id. Ultimately, though, the majority concluded that “the determination whether a plan provision is ambiguous is not a point on which we substantially defer.” Id. If we stay within the bounds of the plan documents and do not stray into extrinsic evidence, we can traverse the Dow Corning slough as well as the district court. We thus evaluate de novo the district court’s determination that the Funding Agreement is unambiguous.