Temex Energy, Inc. v. Haste & Kirschner (In re Amarex, Inc.), 96 B.R. 330, 332 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1989) (citing In re Stratford of Tex., Inc.). To be sure, “(a) Chapter 11 Plan, whether it is one contemplating reorganization or the liquidation of assets, is nothing more nor less than a contract between a debtor and the creditors of the bankruptcy estate.” Retail Marketing Co. v. Northwest Nat’l Bank (In re Mako, Inc.), 120 B.R. 203, 207 (Bankr.E.D.Okla.1990), on subsequent remand on other grounds, 127 B.R. 474, 476 (1991). That the Plan was later confirmed by court or der changes not the validity of the contract. See In re Stratford of Tex., Inc., 635 F.2d at 368; see also United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 236-37, 95 S.Ct. 926, 934, 43 L.Ed.2d 148 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, for purposes of this ruling,
holding that coas should be construed liberally holding that consent decrees and orders should be construed as contracts holding that railroad immunity act should be strictly construed holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign holding that ambiguities in insurance contracts should be favorably construed to the insured