on liability that discuss the Noteholders suggest that the parties intended that the Noteholders be able to sue Aladdin directly, albeit only for acts of gross negligence. Such a reading of the contract does not, as Aladdin argues, fail to give effect to the language of section 29, for section 29 would still prevent non-Noteholders from suing on the PMA. Moreover, given section 8’s limitation on enforcement directly by the Noteholders to the “requisite percentage” in the Indenture, section 29 could plausibly be read as intended to exclude small Note-holders, or secondary market Noteholders, from suing Aladdin directly. In short, it is more than plausible that the parties intended the PMA to inure to the benefit of the Noteholders. See Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd., 375 F.3d at 178 (<HOLDING>). Otherwise, to read the ambiguous language of
holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding that parol evidence can be presented when the terms of the agreement are ambiguous holding contract with ambiguous terms should not be dismissed on pleadings holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well