With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". including those entered into by the government, are viewed in light of governing contract principles”); Jencks v. Modern Woodmen of Am., 479 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir.2007) (treating a negotiated settlement agreement as a contract subject to the rules of contract interpretation). Neither party has addressed whether federal or state rules of contract interpretation should be applied here, but it makes no practical difference when both federal and state contract law apply the objective theory of contracts. See Harris, 477 F.3d at 1047 n. 2 (declining to determine whether federal or state law governed a negotiated settlement agreement because contract principles would be the same under state and federal law); Sheng v. Starkey Labs., Inc., 117 F.3d 1081, 1083 n. 1 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Here both Maryland and federal law apply the

A: recognizing that courts disagree whether federal common law or state law governs the interpretation of negotiated settlement agreement
B: holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law
C: holding that federal common law governs equitable remedies available under erisa
D: holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law
A.