(2d Cir. BAP 1998) (plan expressly stated that “[a]ll unexpired leases of each of the Debtors not previously assumed and assigned are hereby specifically rejected,” and this language was clear and unambiguous). Indeed, the plan here specifically mentioned the debtors’ understanding “that the proponents of the Recapitalization Proposal intend to assume ... third-party payor agreements,” Plan § 8.1(c), and Alberts has not disputed Humana’s representation that its agreements with the debtors were third-party payor agreements. Moreover, Humana has not complained that it received inadequate notice of the deadline to file a claim for cure amounts to which it is entitled by reason of the deemed acceptance. This serves to distinguish Parkwood Realty. See Victory Markets, 221 B.R. at 304-305 (<HOLDING>). V Alberts next argues that in preference
holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa holding that parkwood realty even if its dicta regarding boilerplate plan provisions were correct has no applicability when the other party to the executory contract supports the assumption or rejection the debtor is attempting to uphold pursuant to such provisions holding that contract provisions controlled over provisions of plan for augmentation statute section 37923053 holding that such provisions are valid holding that boilerplate language in a confirmation plan is binding if confirmed