etation that renders a portion of a contract superfluous is "unsupportable: under standard principles of contract interpretation). Specifically, if the Fourth Proviso only excepts debt subordinate in right of payment, there is no purpose for the "in right of payment" carve-out in the Baseline Definition. We disag

30 874 F.3d 787, *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20596, "; Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P83,176; 64 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 216 The Subordinated Notes holders argue that the Fourth Proviso carves out the Second-Lien Notes from the Baseline Definition, i.e., that the Second-Lien Notes are an "[i]ndebtedness or obligation of the Company