Prior to filing its bankruptcy petition, chapter 11 debtor had entered into a licensing agreement with Micro Focus, a British software company. Also prior to the petition filing, debtor sent a letter to Micro Focus that essentially attempted to cancel the licensing agreement due to changed circumstances. Debtor listed the licensing agreement as an executory contract in its bankruptcy filings, but did not list Micro Focus as a creditor or its own alleged claim against Micro Focus as an asset. Micro Focus was sent a letter informing it that debtor had filed a bankruptcy petition, but was not officially notified of the pending bankruptcy. While the bankruptcy was pending, debtor filed a lawsuit against Micro Focus in district court, seeking refund of monies debtor had paid under the agreement. Micro Focus filed a motion to stay that action, pending arbitration, as provided in the parties' agreement. In the meantime, debtor's chapter 11 plan was approved. The district court stayed all proceedings before it and certified two bankruptcy-related questions to the bankruptcy court. In response to the certified questions, the bankruptcy court determined that (1) the licensing agreement was an enforceable executory contract; (2) despite debtor's failure to expressly assume or reject the licensing agreement, the agreement was assumed pursuant to a plan provision providing that debtor assumed all executory contracts not expressly rejected; and (3) the Bankruptcy Code impliedly modified the Arbitration Act such that the decision whether to stay a bankruptcy proceeding pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision is left to the sound discretion of the bankruptcy judge. The court then listed the policies and factors that should be considered in making such a decision, and concluded that, since the plan had already been confirmed, no bankruptcy policy would be seriously compromised by allowing arbitration to proceed in the case before it.