With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". constructive fraud under 11 U.S.C. §§ 548(a)(1)(A) and (B); breach of the Operating Agreement by wrongfully dissociating from Federalpha and by violating the Operating Agreement’s non-competition clause; and breach of its fiduciary duties under the Illinois LLC Act. See Federalpha Steel LLC Creditors’ Trust, 368 B.R. at 696. Although PHA Steel contends that the allegations in these claims are not related to the indemnification provision of the Withdrawal Agreement in which Federal Pipe brings its third-party complaint, I conclude that they are. The interpretation of paragraph 14 of the Withdrawal Agreement, on which Federal Pipe brings a contractual indemnification claim, is a question of law. See Automation By Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Prods. Co., 463 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). With certain qualifications, paragraph 14 of

A: holding that interpretation of contract documents regulations or a solicitation present no disputed issues of material fact and is a question of law
B: holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
C: holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law
D: holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation
C.