agreement] in any respect, whether or not the amendment or the subject of the amendment was originally contemplated .... [S]uch amendment may change terms by the addition of new terms or by the deletion or modification of existing terms, whether relating to ... arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. 5 Del Code Ann. § 952(a). A plain reading of Rule 23 and the Delaware statute reveals that there is no collision between them. A finding that Chase did not give fair notice of this litigation to cardholders does not restrict Chase’s contractual rights under Delaware law. Chase is free to amend its revolving credit agreements under Delaware law, so long as its actions do not impair the integrity of this litigation. See Burlington N. R.R., 480 U.S. at 8, 107 S.Ct. 967 (<HOLDING>); Hanna, 380 U.S. at 473-74, 85 S.Ct. 1136 (“To
holding that courts should consider the merits of the litigants claims the nature of the factual issues the litigants ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues holding that a rule which affects only the process of enforcing litigants rights and not the rights themselves does not exceed the constraints of the rules enabling act holding that it is well settled that while one tenant in common may acquire homestead rights in the common property the rights so acquired are not superior to the rights and remedies of the other joint owners he can acquire no such rights as will prejudice or in anywise interfere with the rights of the other tenants in common holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights