because there is no material fact in dispute and because Equivest is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the motion for summary judgment on the cross-claim will be granted. 1 Oral arguments on this motion were heard on January 21,2005. 2 Equivest is the successor by merger to Castle Acquisitions, Inc., [“CAI”] pursuant to a merger agreement dated October 15,2001. 3 GK’s agreement was originally with CAI. As its legal successor, Equivest was bound by CATs agreement with GK pursuant to paragraph 16 of the concession agreement, which provides that “covenants, conditions, and agreements made and entered into by the parties hereto are declared binding on their respective successors, representatives and assigns.” See Hillard v. Guidant Corp., 37 F. Supp. 2d 379, 381 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (<HOLDING>); American Legacy Foundation v. Lorillard
holding federal court is not bound by terms of plea agreement between defendant and state authorities holding that a successor was bound by an arbitration provision contained in a preexisting cba where the predecessor merged into the successor resulting in a wholesale transfer of the predecessors employees holding successor bound by contract of predecessor when successor accepted benefits of agreement holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement holding that under  98 of restatement principal elected to ratify unauthorized act by accepting benefits of agreement with full knowledge of its terms and was therefore bound to terms of agreement