statutory language does not unambiguously impose a temporal requirement. It contends that “plan confirmed” is not necessarily the equivalent of “confirmed plan,” and that had Congress intended the latter, it would have used that language, as it did in a related Code provision. See § 1142(b) (referring to “any instrument required to effect a transfer of property dealt with by a confirmed plan”). Piccadilly also argues that “under” is just as easily read to mean “in accordance with.” It observes that the variability of the term “under” is well-documented, noting that the American Heritage Dictionary 1395 (1976) provides 15 definitions, including “[i]n view of,” “because of,” “by virtue of,” as well as “[s]ub-ject to the restraint ... of.” See also Ardestani, supra, at 135, 112 S.Ct. 515 (<HOLDING>). Although “under” appears several times in §
holding that a statute should where possible be construed according to its plain meaning and as a whole giving meaning to all its parts recognizing that the word under has many dictionary definitions and must draw its meaning from its context holding the word individuals is not the equivalent of the dictionary acts use of the word persons recognizing without resolving the split in authority on the meaning of the word holding that a state was embraced within the meaning of the word person  where the word person was defined as meaning and including a partnership association company or corporation as well as a natural person