In Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity v. Monsoon Blockchain Storage, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) addressed the enforceability of an arbitration provision in connection with a post-petition contract entered into by the debtors and a non-debtor counterparty. The Court first concluded that Paragraph 22(B) did provide for the arbitration of disputes under the APA. However, the Court then found that the Addendum represented the parties’ actual intent and that its language controlled. In light of the Addendum’s unambiguous language, the Court concluded that the parties did not agree to arbitrate claims under the APA.
The 5th edition of the MBCAA of course contains the full text of the Model Act, reflecting all amendments and Official Comments through July 1, 2020, including the substantial revisions effected by the 2016 revision of the Model Act, and more recent additions such as the provisions authorizing virtual-only shareholder meetings and public benefit corporations. Extensive additional resources, however, distinguish the newly published MBCAA from other published versions of the Act and, indeed, from other corporate law treatises.
On April 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Lamps Plus, Inc., et. al. v. Varela, No 17-988. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the requisite contractual basis to support a finding that the parties agreed to submit a dispute to class arbitration.