new or worsened environmental conditions that require “further” remediation. However, the Reservation of Rights clause can also reasonably be read to encompass environmental conditions known to New York when the District Court filed the settlement order. The clause is not explicitly limited to unknown or worsened environmental conditions, nor does it state that New York must base its decision to initiate further proceedings on its review of the site investigation reports. Because the settlement order is ambiguous and the parties have not had a full opportunity to present extrinsic evidence of their intent, we remand to the District Court so that it may consider such evidence in determining the parties’ intent. See In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litig., 282 F.3d 103, 111 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We have considered all remaining arguments
holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because there was no  consent decree left to be terminated holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because the challenged provisions of the decree had expired holding that consent decree could not preclude plaintiffs from bringing claims that could not have been brought at time consent decree was filed and to which they were legally and procedurally entitled holding consent decree provision ambiguous and vacating and remanding to the district court to permit submission of extrinsic evidence holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court