ORDER CLARIFYING CONFIRMATION ORDER

Four unsecured creditors rely on a mistakenly included phrase in the order *845confirming the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization 1 to argue their prepetition employment related claims remain collectible. The improperly inserted phrase arguably allows claims for “gross negligence or willful misconduct” to survive; however, such a reading is inconsistent with the Plan and other provisions of the Confirmation Order, and is stricken from the Confirmation Order.2 The Court will grant the Creditors’ Motion for Clarification 3 to establish that the Creditors4 are forever enjoined from collecting upon their prepetition claims.

Debtor,5 a home appliance retailer and its affiliates, filed their Chapter 11 cases seeking financial reorganization in 2011.6 They confirmed their Plan later that year.7 Debtor filed this Chapter 11 case, in part, to finally resolve the claims of these Creditors.

Creditors each have an unsecured pre-petition claim against the Debtor. The claims were the subject of litigation pending in federal or state courts filed before these bankruptcy cases were initiated and asserted sexual harassment or employment retaliation claims against their employer—the Debtor. Ms. Stebbins filed a claim in the main case and the GROJ case,8 and appeared at the confirmation hearing.9 Ms. Blizzard10 and Ms. Sapp11 filed claims in the GROJ case. Ms. Kirby filed no formal claim in the cases, but she obtained a judgment in a federal court lawsuit against the Debtor.12 Debtor listed *846each of the Creditors, including Ms. Kirby, in its schedules as creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims.13

Under the Plan, unsecured creditors, including these four Creditors, are included in Class 4.14 Each unsecured creditor in Class 4 was given a pro rata15 interest in a “Cash Flow Note”16 “in full satisfaction” of every allowed unsecured claim.17 Class 4 creditors would receive quarterly payments under the Cash Flow Note18 for four years after the “Effective Date.”19 Debtor’s obligation to make payments on the Cash Flow Note ended on or about November 6, 2015.20 Creditors do not dispute they received payments due them under the Cash Flow Note.21

The Plan includes a standard “Discharge” section.22 In exchange for agreeing to make the required payments, upon the Effective Date, the Debtor is discharged from all pre-confirmation debt “whether or not (1) A proof of claim based upon such debt is filed or deemed filed under § 501 of the [Bankruptcy] Code; (2) A Claim based upon such debt is allowed under § 502 of the [Bankruptcy] Code; or (3) the holder of a Claim or Interest based upon such debt has accepted the Plan.” The Plan further limited creditors from pursuing collection against the succeeding entities, the Post-Confirmation Debtor, by imposing an injunction enjoining any party from any collection activity against them or their property.23

*847So, in plain English, the Plan provided that any prepetition unsecured creditor in Class 4 could not seek further payment from the Debtor, the Post-Confirmation Debtor, or their property. This is a standard provision in a Chapter 11 case. Debtors agree to pay their creditors a specified amount and, in exchange and upon confirmation, creditor claims are extinguished.

The confirmation process was straightforward. All needed parties had sufficient time to consider the Plan and its terms.24 One of the Creditors, Ms. Stebbins, even attended the confirmation hearing. I explained she was bound by the Plan and could not continue to individually collect her claim.25

Creditors east sufficient votes in favor of the Plan overall (and in Class 4 specifically) to allow the Plan to be confirmed.26 The Confirmation Order provided expressly that the Confirmation Order would control if there were any inconsistencies with the Plan.27 The Confirmation Order referenced § 1141(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that “all assets and property of the [Debtor] shall be vested in the Post-Confirmation [Debtor] ... free and clear of all liens, claims, and interests of creditors.”28

Now, five years after Confirmation Order was entered29 and this case initially *848was closed,30 and one year after all payments due under the Cash Flow Note ended,31 presumably with the Creditors receiving all payments required under the Plan, Creditors point to one phrase in Paragraph 15 of the Confirmation Order to justify their right to continue collection efforts against the Post-Confirmation Debtor. The bolded language specifically provides:

In accordance with §§ 524 and 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and except as otherwise provided in the Amended Plan and this Confirmation Order, on and after the Effective Date, all Persons are permanently, enjoined and restrained from, commencing or continuing in any court any suit, action, or other proceeding, or otherwise asserting any Claim or Interest, seeking to hold liable the Post-Confirmation Debtors or the property of the Post-Confirmation Debtors, for any claim, obligation, right, interests, debt or liability that has been treated pursuant to the Amended Plan and for any and all claims arising under bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy law relating in any way to the Debtors, the Post-Confirmation Debtors or their business, except for any claims or actions related to gross negligence or willful misconduct.32

Creditors seek clarification that this language allows them to continue collection efforts on their claims, provided they can demonstrate the claims arose from “gross negligence or willful misconduct.”33 This the Court declines to do.

Section 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code34 describes the effects of plan confirmation.35 Confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization binds debtors and creditors to the plan, vests all property of the estate in the debtor free and clear of all claims and interests, and discharges the debtor of pre-confirmation debt.36 Courts follow “principles of contract interpretation [when interpreting] a confirmed plan of reorganization.”37 “Traditional contract-interpretation principles make contract interpretation a question of law, decided by reading the words of a contract in the context of the 'entire contract and construing the contract to effectuate the parties’ intent.”38

The starting point is the language of the contract itself, here, the plan of reorganization.39 When provisions in a contract conflict, contract interpretation *849principles dictate that “a specific provision dealing with a particular subject will control over a different provision dealing only generally with that same subject.”40 A confirmation order is not construed in a vacuum, but it is interpreted with the plan of reorganization.41 Creditors’ pre-confir-mation. claims are subsumed in and replaced by the new contract created by the confirmed plan of reorganization,42 Thus, “each claimant gets a new claim, based on whatever treatment” is detailed in the plan.43

"Under basic Chapter 11 bankruptcy law, upon confirmation, a creditor exchanges its prepetition claim for a new claim defined by its treatment under a plan of reorganization. The old claim is discharged and uncollectible. A new claim arises for whatever is required by the confirmed plan of reorganization. If the post-confirmation debtor fails to honor its obligations under the confirmed plan, the creditor can seek relief. But, the old, pre-petition claim is not resurrected for collection. The Plan here precisely outlined how the Creditors’ claims would be paid—Class 4 prepetition unsecured creditors would receive quarterly payments for four years under the Cash Flow Note in full satisfaction of their claims. This was the deal struck by the Parties and approved during the confirmation process. Though these individual Creditors did not vote in favor of or object to the Plan, they are bound by their treatment as Class 4 creditors because sufficient numbers of similarly situated Class 4 creditors overwhelmingly voted to accept this treatment. Although the Court is sensitive to the events that gave rise to the Creditors’ particular claims, they are still unsecured claims subject to the same treatment as any other unsecured claim of the Debtor.

Creditors’ reliance on Paragraph 15 of the Confirmation Order to justify their continued collection activity is misplaced. The language at the end of the paragraph allowing claims for “gross negligence or willful misconduct” to survive is inconsistent with the Plan, contrary to the intent of all parties during the confirmation process, and appears a clear scrivener’s error.

Paragraph 15 is a general provision that references specific provisions in the Plan and Confirmation Order. The prefatory words in Paragraph 15 limit their scope “except as otherwise provided in the Amended Plan and this Confirmation Order.” Creditors’ claims were treated specifically in the Plan as unsecured Class 4 claims. Treatment through the Plan meant their claims are fully satisfied regardless of what gave rise to the claims, whether they were for breach of contract or sexual harassment. Creditors’ claims were subsumed in and replaced by the treatment afforded to them under the Plan. This specific treatment controls over the general language used in Paragraph 15 of the *850Confirmation Order that for some unexplained reason appears to allow claims for “gross negligence or willful misconduct” to survive. This expansive language is without meaning or justification.

Aside from the strange last phrase of Paragraph 15, the Plan and Confirmation Order are premised on the idea that creditors would not be able to collect on unsecured pre-confirmation claims against the Debtor. The Court will not give these thirteen words in a general paragraph (perhaps placed poorly) more weight than a specific paragraph and the clear intent in the Plan. The contract created by the Plan and Confirmation Order controls, and the Creditors1' claims are fully satisfied.

No party, including any of these Creditors, believed at the confirmation hearing that their prepetition claim would survive after confirmation. Rather, including this language appears a glaring error, which, in hindsight, should have been fixed at the time. Although the drafting attorneys should have been more careful in their use of language and the Court also should have caught their error, I cannot now enforce this provision that is contrary to the Plan, the parties’ understanding, and the entire confirmation process. Debtor bargained for a “fresh start” discharging it of old, pre-petition debt. Debtor is entitled to the benefit of its Plan

Creditors cannot express surprise insofar as they received everything they were entitled to receive under the Plan. Similar to every other unsecured creditor in Class 4, they received payments under the Cash Flow Note. They knew their claim was fully satisfied at the end of the four year payment period. Yet, they waited years before contending, relying on Paragraph 15 of the Confirmation Order, they can continue to collect on their prepetition claims to the extent they arose from “gross negligence or willful misconduct.” They understandably are trying to capitalize on this mistake; however, the Court, belatedly, will strike the offensive provision from Paragraph 15 of the Confirmation Order.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. The Creditors’ Motion for Clarification (Doc. No. 282) is GRANTED.

2. The exception outlined in Paragraph 15 of the Confirmation Order does not allow the Creditors to collect their prepetition claims.

3. The words “expect for any claims or actions related to gross negligence or willful misconduct” are stricken from Paragraph 15 of the Confirmation Order.

4. The Clerk is directed to re-close the case.