a direct benefit from the agreement. Carlyle Inv. Mgmt. LLC v. Moonmouth Co. SA, 779 F.3d 214, 219 (3d Cir.2015). Further, third parties “that should have foreseen governance by the clause may also be bound to it.” First Fin. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Univ. Painters of Balt., Inc., No. 11-5821, 2012 WL 1150131, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 5, 2012). The Court may apply the forum selection clause to a nonsignatory if the totality of the circumstances, makes it fair and reasonable to bind the nonsignatory to the clause because it is foreseeable to the non-signatory that it would become involved in the contract dispute. Lefkowitz v. McGraw-Hill Cos., No. 13-1661, 2013 WL 3061549, at *3 (E.D.Pa. June 9, 2013); see also Magi XXI, Inc. v. Stato della Citta del Vaticano, 714 F.3d 714, 722 (2d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Adams v. Raintree Vacation Exch., 702 F.3d
holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum recognizing that using a literal approach to interpreting forum selection clauses could undermine their purpose holding that claims were not related to a license agreement which contained a forum selection clause in part because the bulk of the claims were against a defendant who was not a party to the agreement for breaches of employment contracts which did not contain forum selection clauses and for disclosure of trade secrets holding that forum selection clause applied to tort claims that arose out of a contractual relationship and noting that if forum selection clauses are to be enforced as a matter of public policy that same public policy required that they not be defeated by artful pleadings of tort claims  internal citation omitted holding enforceable forum selection clauses in arbitration agreements