Newman Deck Ex. A, Foster Dep. 249:11-252:20, May 16, 2012 (same). Additionally, some of the Producers themselves stated that they sold the oil and gas without restrictions and with the expectation that the Debtors would resell it. See Byroade Deck in Support of BP Renewed Mot. Summ. J. Ex. E (compiling citations to deposition testimony supporting this proposition) [Adv. No. 09-50105, Docket No. 702], 69 . To the extent that Producers argue that the Conoco General Provisions are simply boilerplate language that should not be enforced against them, the Court disagrees. Producers cite no cases for the proposition that boilerplate provisions are not binding. To the contrary, the case law supports the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., In re Madera, 445 B.R. 509, 514 (Bankr.D.S.C.2011) (<HOLDING>); Lambert v. Kysar, 983 F.2d 1110, 1119 (1st
holding that boilerplate language in a confirmation plan is binding if confirmed holding that a confirmed chapter 13 plan is binding on all parties under 11 usc  1327a however the plan may be modified pursuant to 11 usc  1329 holding that confirmation of a chapter 11 plan creates a binding contract which may be enforced in state courts holding that provision in chapter 13 plan discharging postpetition interest on a student loan is binding on creditor under theory of res judicata where objection was not raised prior to plan confirmation and confirmation order was not appealed holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case