to the plaintiffs claims. Thus, even where a party “is not technically suing for breach of' contract,” the forum selection clause can still apply if “the entire controversy centers around which party’s interpretation of the contract is thé correct one.” Int’l Software Sys., Inc. v. Amplicon, Inc., 77 F.3d 112, 116 (5th Cir.1996). That quite accurately describes this dispute. Plaintiffs ' argue, with colorable support, that the October 2014 Settlement Agreement released them from claims such as those in the Kentucky Action. (ECF No. 14 at 11-19.) Vine contends the opposite. (ECF No. 23 at 19-24.) The correct interpretation of the October 2014 Settlement Agreement is therefore directly at issue. See also John Wyeth & Bro. Ltd. v. CIGNA Int’l Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1076 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>).' 3. The Second Amended Kentucky Complaint The
holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract holding that the arbitration agreement in a written contract did not apply to a dispute arising from a subsequent oral agreement which did not incorporate the arbitration clause from the written contract holding that a broadly worded forum selection clause extending to any dispute arising  in relation to  the contract easily encompasses a dispute in which the contract is raised as a defense holding that contract promise to litigate any dispute arising from the contract in the english courts was prima facie valid quoting underlying contract holding that when action arising under contract containing venue selection clause is filed in court other than that specified in clause case will be transferred to forum selected by contract unless venue selection clause is unreasonable and unjust or invalid due to fraud or overreaching