2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-10-2006 

# In Re: Mint ze P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-4745

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: Mintz e " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1682. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1682P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### N o . 03- 4745 I N R E: ETHEL M AR I E M I NTZE, D ebt or ETHEL M AR I E M I NTZE

v. A M E R IC A N G E N E R A L F IN A N C IA L S E R V IC E S , IN C ., f /k /a A M E R IC A N G E N E R A L F IN A N C E , IN C .; A M E R IC A N G E N E R A L C O N S U M E R D IS C O U N T C O .,

coll ect i vely , "A m eri can G eneral ", A p p e llan ts E D W A R D S P A R K M A N , E S Q .; F R E D E R IC J . B A K E R , E S Q ., T rus t ees A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 03- cv- 02113 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin-2- A r gued J anuary10, 2005 B E FO R E : R O T H and C H E R T O FF*, C i r cui tJ udges , and

R E ST A N I **, C hi ef J udge ( Fi l ed: J anuary10, 2006) *T hi s cas e w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he pane l of J udges R oth, C her t off a nd R es t ani . J udge C her t off r es i gned af t er s ubm i s s i on, butbefor e the fi l i ng of the opi ni on. T he dec i s i on is fil ed b ya q u o rum o f th e p an el. 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 6 (d). **H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. H enryF. R ei chner , E s qui r e ( A r gued) C h arles L . B ec k er, E sq u ir e Re e d Smi t h , LLP 2500 O ne Li ber t yPl ace 1650 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103

C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts I r v A ckel s ber g, E s qui r e ( A r gued) C om m uni t yl egal Ser vi ces , I nc. 3638 N . B r oad St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19140 P au l B land , E sq u ir e T r i al L aw y er s forPubl i c J us t i ce 1 7 1 7 M a s s a c h u s e t t s Av e n u e . NW-3- Sui t e 800 W as hi ngt on, D . C . 20036

C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge I n t hi s appea l , w e ar e as ked t o det erm i ne w hetherthe B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s deci s i on t o denyenfor cementof an o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le a rb itr a tio n c la u s e w a s p ro p e r. E t hel M . M i nt ze a nd A m er i can G ener al C ons um er D i s countC om panyent er ed i nt o a l oan agr eement . M i nt ze s u b s e q u e n tly f

ile d a v o lu n ta ry C h a p te r 1 3 b a n k ru p tc yp e titio n . A ft erA m er i can G ener al fi l ed a pr oof of c l ai m , M i nt ze f i l ed a c o m p la in t in th e B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt s e e k in g , in tera lia , to e n f o rc e a p re -p e titio n re s c is s io n o f th e lo a n a g re e m e n t. A m e ric a n G e n e ra l C o n su m e r D isc o u n t C o m p a n ya n d its-4- parentcom pan y , A m eri can G eneral F i nan ci al S ervi ces, ( col l ect i vel y“A G F”) then fi l ed a M ot i on t o C om pel Arb i t r a t i o n , wh i c h t h e Ba n k ru p t c yCo u r td e n i e d . AGF c l a i ms t hatt he B ankrupt cyC our tdi d nothave the di s cr et i on t o deny e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t. B as ed on the pr ovi s i ons of the Feder al A rbi t r at i on A ct o f 1 9 4 7 , 9 U .S .C . § 1 -1 4 , (F A A ) a n d M in tze ’s f a ilu re to es t abl i s h t hatC ongr es s i nt ended t o pr ecl ude w ai verof j udi ci al rem ed ies fo r he r claim s, w e h o ld tha t th e B an k rup tcyC o u rt l acke d t he author i t yand di s cr et i on t o denyenfor cementof the arbi t r at i on pr ovi s i on. W e r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our tO r der aff i r m i ng t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s deci s i on, and w e r emand t he ca s e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o r emand i tt o t he B ankrupt cy C o u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to o rd e r th e p a rties to e n g a g e in arbi t r at i on i n acc or dance w i t h t he t erm s of the arbi t r at i on pr ovi s i on.-5- I. E th e l M . M in tz e is a re tir e d a n d d is a b le d h o m e o w n e r. S h e liv e s w ith h e r c h ild re n in a ro w h o u s e in P h ila d e lp h ia . L at e i n t he y ear2000, s he had t o r epl ace the hea t eri n her h o m e . T h e c o s to f

a n e w h e a t e rw a s $ 3 8 0 0 . U n f o r tu n a t e l y, M i nt ze c oul d notaff

or d i t . A & M H eat i ng, a hea t i ng contr act or , r efe r r ed M i nt ze t o A G F. O n O ct ober20, 2000, M i n t z e a n d AGF e n t e r e d a l o a n a g r e e me n t , wh e r e b yAGF lo a n e d M in tze th e m o n e yto p u rc h a se a n e w h e a ter in e x c h a n g e f

o r M in tze c o n so lid a tin g th a t lo a n a n d o th e r d e b t, i nc l ud i ng he rmor t ga ge , i nt o a ho me e qu i t yl oa n wi t h AG F. T he pr i nci pl e bal ance of thi s agr eementw as $44, 716. 34, and cons i s t ed of he rm or t gage ( $25, 602. 55) ; the bal ance of hercr edi tcar d debt( $10, 463. 51) ; the cos tof the new heat er( about$3800) ; s et t l ementchar ges ( $2821) ; and p re m iu m s f

o r tw o life in su ra n c e p o licie s ($ 1 6 2 9 in a c re d itW e n o t e t h a tM i n t z e was n o ti n f a c te l i g i b l e f

o rt he 1 c re d it l if e in su ra n c e p o licyb e c a u se o f a p re -e x istin g h e a lth condi t i on. -6- l i fe i ns ur ance pol i cy , and $400 i n a t erm l i fe i ns ur ance 1 pol i cy ) . T he t erm s of the l oan agr eementw er e paym ent s of $551. 13 perm ont h overfi ft een y ear s atan annua l per cent age r at e of 13. 44% . T he l oan agr eemental s o cont ai ned a de m and cl aus e and a n arbi t r at i on cl aus e. T he demand cl aus e al l ow ed A G F t o acc el er at e the l oan af t erfi ve y ear s . T he arbi t r at i on c lau se sta ted th a t “a ll cla im s a n d d isp u tes a risin g o u t o f , in connec t i on w i t h, orr el at i ng t o [the] l oan” must“be r es ol ved bybi ndi ng arbi t r at i on. ” M i nt z e be ga n t o f

a l l be hi nd i n h e rpa yment s t o AG F, and on D ece m ber4, 2001, s he vol unt ar i l yfi l ed a Chapt er13 peti t i on for ban kruptcy . A G F fi l ed a p roof o f cl ai m against M i n t z e ’ s e s t a t e . M i n t z e th e n f i l e d a c o mp l a i n ta g a i n s tAGFM in tze ra ise d c laim s u n d e r t h e H o m e O w n e rs E q u ity 2 Pr ot ect i on A ctof 1 9 9 4 , 15 U . S. C . §§ 1601- 15 ( H O E PA ) ; the E qual C r edi tO p p o r tuni t yA ct , 15 U . S. C . §§ 1691- 1691f ( E C O A ) ; t he Penns y l vani a H om e I m pr ovementFi nance A ct , 73 P A . C ON S . S TAT . §§ 500- 101–500- 602 ( H I FA ) ; and the Penns y l vani a U nfai r T r ade Pr act i ces and C ons um erPr ot ect i on L aw , 73 P A . C ON S . S TAT . § 2 0 1 -1--2 0 1 -9.3 (U T P C P L ). -7- i n t he B ankrupt cyC our t . I n hercompl ai nt , M i nt ze a l l eged t h a tAGF i n d u c e d h e rt o e n t e ra n i l l e g a l a n d a b u s i v e h o me equi t yl oan thatr es ul t ed i n A G F hol di ng a mort gage l i en agai ns therhom e; s he s oughtt o enfor ce a pr e- pet i t i on resc issi o n o f th e m o rt g ag e tha t she asse rt ed u n d er the T ruth In L endi ng A ct , 15 U . S. C . §§ 1601- 1667f ( “TILA ”) ; and s he as s er t ed s ever al ot hercl ai m s underfede r al and s t at e cons um er prot ect i on l aw s. 2 O n M ay20, 2002, A G F fi l ed a M ot i on t o C om pel A rbi t r at i on. D ur i ng t he mot i on hear i ng, the B ankrupt cy Ju d g e so u g h t to c o n f

irm tw o stip u latio n s o f

th e p a rties . F irst,-8- T H E C O U R T : . . . [L ]etm e fi rs t confi r m thatthe part i es have agr eed, atl eas tforpurpos es of t hi s ar gum ent , thatthe mat t er befor e me i s a cor e pr ocee di ng. [A G F’ s C ouns el ] : Y es , Y our H o n o r. [M i nt ze’ s C ouns el ] : Y es , Y our H o n o r. Second, T H E C O U R T : . . . [I]n

Z i m m erm an, as i n t hi s cas e, [the p roc ee d ing ] i n v o lved a c o re m at t er . A nd the ups hotof that w ou l d m ean thatw hetherI choose t o g r a n tt h e r e l i e f

i s wi t h i n my di s cr et i on. B oth couns el agr ee t hati n t erm s of the s t andar d t hat I ’ m appl y i ng? [M i nt ze’ s C ouns el ] : Y es , Y our H o n o r. T H E C O U R T : O k a y . N o w , I’ll as k t he s ame t ype of que s t i on on a di ffe r enti s s ue, and I know I m i ght notgetagr eementon t hi s one, but-9- I ’ l l a s k i ta n yw a y. A s i s appar ent , couns el forA G F m ade no r es pons e t o t he ques t i on of the courtconce r ni ng the court ’ s di s cr et i on t o gr ant A G F ’s M o tio n to C o m p e l A rb itratio n . B a se d o n th is excha nge, t he B ankrupt cyC our tdet erm i ned thatthe pr ocee di ng befor e i tw as a cor e pr ocee di ng and thati thad the di s cr et i on t o denyenfor cementof the arbi t r at i on cl aus e. T he B ank rupt cyC ou rtt hen decided thatthe m at t er w as best r e s o l v e d i n t h e b a n k ru p t c yc o u r ts y s t e m b e c a u s e th e o u t c o me of M i nt ze’ s r es ci s s i on cl ai m w oul d aff ectherbankrupt cypl an a n d th e d is tr ib u tio n o f

m o n ie s to h e r o th e r c re d ito rs . See Mi nt z e v. A m . G en. F i n. , I

nc. ( I n r e Mi nt z e) , 288 B . R . 95 (B an k r. E . D . P a. 20 0 3 ) (Mi nt z e I ) . On J a n u a r y2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , AGF fil ed a ti m elyap p ea l. F ind ing that the B an k rup tcyC o u rt act ed w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on, the D i s t r i ctC our taff i r m ed the B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt O rd e r. See In re Mi ntz e , 2 0 0 3 WL-10- 2 2 7 0 1 0 2 0 (E . D . P a. 20 0 3 ) (Mintze II ) . O n D ece m ber11, 2 0 0 3 , A G F f

iled a tim e lya p p e a l. O n Sept ember24, 2004, w hi l e the curr entcas e w as p e n d in g b e f

o re u s, th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt issu e d a n O rd e r in re sp o n se to A G F ’s M o tio n f o r S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t w ith r es pectt o s ever al of M i nt ze’ s cl ai m s . T he C our tgr ant ed A G F’ s mot i on w i t h r e s pe c tt o M i nt z e ’ s TI LA a nd H O EPA cl ai m s . T he C our tal s o m arked M i nt ze’ s H I FA cl ai m as w ith d ra w n . II. T hi s appea l comes t o us fr om the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C ou rtfor the E ast ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a. T he case or i gi nat ed i n t he B ankrupt cyC our tforthatdi s t r i ct . T he B ankrupt cyC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1 5 7 (a ) a n d 1 3 3 4 (b ). T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d a p p e llate ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 8 (a )( 1 ) a n d 9 U .S .C . §-11- 16( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( pr ovi di ng appea l fr om an or derdeny i ng arbi t r at i on) . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 5 8 (d) a n d 9 U . S . C . § 1 6 (a)(1)(B ). W e g ive p lena ryrev iew to a d ec isi o n o f a d istri ct co u rt s ittin g a s a n a p p e lla te c o u rt in a b a n k ru p tc yp ro c e e d in g . See T h e R eso luti o n T

ru st C o rp . v. Sw ed elan d D ev . G ro u

p , Inc . ( In r e Sw e d e la n d

D e v . G r o u

p , In c .) , 1 6 F . 3 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T h ere fo re, w e re v iew “the B an k rup tcyC o u rt ’s fi ndi ngs of fa ctunderthe cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d and concl us i ons of l aw undera de novo s t andar d. ” H al perv. H al per , 164 F. 3d 830, 835 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . W e onl yr evi ew t h e Ba n k ru p t c yCo u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n f o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n i f

we fi r s tdet erm i ne, underpl enaryr evi ew , thati thad the di s cr et i on to e x e rc is e . See H

ays & Co. v. Mer r i l lLynch Pi er ce, Fenner & Sm i th, I

nc. , 885 F. 2d 1149, 1156 ( 1989) ( r efus i ng t o r evi ew ca se f o r ab u se o f d iscreti o n b ec au se c o u rt“c o m m itted a m o re-12- f u n d a m e n tal e rro r in d e ter m in in g th a t ith a d d isc re tio n to e x e rc is e ” ). III . A G F ar gues t hatthe B ankrupt cyC our tl acke d t he di s cr et i on t o denyenfor cementof the arbi t r at i on cl aus e i n t he m or t gage a gr eement . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d, and M i nt ze cont ends , t hatt he B ankrupt cyC our thad s uch di s cr et i on and t hati tw as w i t hi n i t s bounds of di s cr et i on w hen i trul ed a g a i n s tAGF . T h e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u me n t s s t e m f r o m th e two sti p u lat ion s tha t th e p arti es m ad e a t th e h ea ri n g o n A G F ’s M o tio n to C o m p e l. A t th e h e a rin g , the p a rties a lleg e d ly s t i pul at ed thatt he pr ocee di ng i n ques t i on w as a “c or e” pr ocee di ng and thatt he B ankrupt cyC our thad the di s cr et i on t o denyenfor cementof the arbi t r at i on cl aus e i n t he l oan agr eement . A G F cl ai m s that , des pi t e i t s conce s s i on thatthe proceed i ng w as a “core” proceed i ng , the p roceeding w as a-13- n o n -c o re p ro c e e d in g a n d th a t, ev e n if th e p ro c e e d in g is d e e m e d to b e c o re , su c h a d e ter m in a tio n d id n o t au to m a tica lly g iv e th e B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt th e d is c re tio n to d e n ya rb itr a tio n . A G F cl ai m s t hatt he B ankrupt cyC our tdi d nothave di s cr et i on t o denyenfor cementof the arbi t r at i on cl aus e bec aus e the s t andar d s etouti n Shears on/ A m . E xp. , I nc. v. McM

ahon , 482 U .S . 2 2 0 (1 9 8 7 ), w a s n o t s a tis f ie d . M in tz e c la im s th a t A G F is b o u n d b yits s tip u la tio n s . A ccor di ng t o M i nt ze, t he B ankrupt cyC our thad the di s cr et i on t o denyarbi t r at i on and ours t andar d of r evi ew i s forabus e of t hatdi s cr et i on, w hi ch M i nt ze c l ai m s w as notabus ed. M i nt ze al s o cl ai m s t hatw e s houl d di s m i s s A G F’ s cl ai m s underthe doctr i ne of j udi ci al es t oppel and ourrul e aga i ns tcons i der i ng n e w iss u e s o n a p p e a l. B efor e w e ca n det erm i ne w hetherthe B ankrupt cy C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on, w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherthe-14- B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt h a d a n yd is c re tio n to e x e rc is e . See H ays , 885 F. 2d at1156 ( r efus i ng t o addr es s the abus e of di s cr et i on i s s ue bec aus e the court“comm i t t ed a mor e funda m ent al err or i n det erm i ni ng t hati thad di s cr et i on t o exer ci s e”) . W e ar e not bound byt he part i es ’ s t i pul at i ons conce r ni ng ques t i ons of la w . See Kraf

tG en. Foods , I

nc. v. I ow a D ep’ tof

R ev. & Fi n. , 5 0 5 U .S . 7 1 , 8 5 (1 9 9 2 ). W h e th e r a b a n k ru p tcy pr o c e e d in g is a c o re o r n o n -c o re p ro c e e d in g is a q u e s tio n o f la w . See H al per , 1 6 4 F .2 d a t 8 3 6 -3 7 . See a l so U. S . L i n e s , I

n c . v . A m. S. S. O w ners Mut . P r ot . & I ndem n. A s s ’ n, I

nc. ( I n r e U . S. L in e s , In c .) , 1 9 7 F . 3 d 6 3 1 , 6 3 6 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W h ethe r a bankrupt cycour thas the di s cr et i on t o denyenfor cementof an a rb itr a tio n c la u s e is a ls o a q u e s tio n o f la w . See H

ays , 885 F . 2d at11 52 . T herefore, the p art i es’ st i pu l at i on s i n thi s case ar e notbi ndi ng on us . W e w i l l addr es s eac h s t i pul at i on and i t s eff ecton w hetherthe B ankrupt cyC our thad the di s cr et i on-15- to d e n ye n f

o rc e m e n t o f

th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t. A. Ba n k ru p t c yp r o c e e d i n g s a r e d i v i d e d i n t o two c a te g o ri e s : c o re a n d n o n -c o re . See 28 U . S. C . § 157. T he di s t i nct i on betw een the tw o cat egor i es i s r el evantbeca us e the t ype of pr ocee di ng m aydet erm i ne the ul t i m at e author i t yof t he bankrupt cycour t . I n a cor e pr ocee di ng, a bankrupt cy cour thas “compr ehens i ve pow ert o hear , deci de and e nt er fi nal or der s and j udgm ent s . ” H al per , 164 F. 3d at836 ( ci t i ng 28 U . S. C . § 157( b) ( 1) ) . I n addi t i on, the bankrupt cycour tcan m ake f i ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw . I n contr as t , the bankrupt cycour t ’ s author i t yi s s i gni fi cant l yl i m i t ed i n noncor e pr ocee di ngs . I n a non- cor e pr ocee di ng, the bankrupt cy cour ti s al l ow ed onl yt o m ake pr opos ed fi ndi ngs of fa ctand pr opos ed conc l us i ons of l aw , w hi ch i ts ubm i t s t o t he di s t r i ct c o u rt . See 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 5 7 (c)(1).-16- T he cor e/non- cor e di s t i nct i on does not , how ever , aff ect w hethera bankrupt cycour thas the di s cr et i on t o deny e n f o rc e m e n t o f

a n a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t. S e e I n s . Co . o f N. A m . v. N G CSet t l em ent Trus t& Asbe s t os C l ai m s M gm t . C or p. ( I n r e Na t ’ lGy

p s u m) , 118 F. 3d 1056, 1068 ( 5th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng I

n r e Stat ew i de Real t

y C o. , 159 B . R . 719, 722 ( B ankr . D . N . J . 1993) ) . I tm er el ydet erm i nes w hetherthe b a n k ru p tcy co u rt h a s th e ju risd ictio n to m a k e a f u ll adj udi cat i on. B eca us e thi s di s t i nct i on does notaff ectw hether t he B ankrupt cyC our thad the di s cr et i on t o denyarbi t r at i on, w e w i l l acc eptt he part i es ’ s t i pul at i on thatthe pr ocee di ng w as a “c or e” pr ocee di ng forthe purpos es of dec i di ng w hetherthe B ankrupt cyC our thad di s cr et i on. B. T h e F A A p ro v id e s th a t ar b itratio n a g re e m e n ts “ sh a ll be val i d, i r r evoca bl e, and enf or cea bl e, s ave upon s uch-17- gr ounds as exi s tatl aw ori n equi t yforthe r evoca t i on of any c o n t r a c t . ” 9 U . S . C . § 2 . A c o u r th a s th e p o w e rt o s t a y a pr ocee di ng i f i tdet erm i nes thatan i s s ue fa l l s underan appl i cabl e arbi t r at i on cl aus e. 9 U . S. C . § 3. I f one of the par t i es fai l s t o compl yw i t h s uch an a gr eement , a courtm ay o rd e r “ th e p a rties to p ro c e e d to a rb itratio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e te rm s o f

th e a g re e m e n t.” 9 U .S .C . § 4 . T he FA A has es t abl i s hed a s t r ong pol i cyi n favorof a rb itr a tio n . See Moses H. C on e Mem . H osp. v. Mercury C ons tr . C or

p. , 460 U . S. 1, 24 ( 1983) . I tr equi r es r i gor ous e n f o rc e m e n t o f

a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n ts . See D ean W i t t er R eyno lds, Inc. v. B

yrd , 470 U . S. 213, 220 ( 1985) . B yi t s el f, t he FA A m andat es enfor cementof appl i cabl e arbi t r at i on a g re e m e n ts e v e n f

o r f e d e ra l s ta tu to ry c la im s . See M cM ahon , 4 8 2 U .S . a t 2 2 6 . T he FA A ’ s m andat e ca n, how ever , be overr i dden. I f a-18- partyop po si ng arbi t rat i on can d em on strat e t hat “C on gress i nt ended t o pr ecl ude a w ai verof j udi ci al r emedi es forthe sta tu to ryrig h ts a t issu e ,” th e F A A w ill n o t co m p e l co u rts to e n f o rc e a n o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t. McM ahon , 482 U . S. at227. T o over come enfor cementof a rb itratio n , a p a rtym u st e sta b lish c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t to cr eat e an e xcept i on t o t he FA A ’ s m andat e w i t h r es pectt o t he par t y ’ s s t atut or ycl ai m s . C ongr es s i onal i nt entcan be di s cerned in o n e o f th ree w ay s: ( 1 ) th e statute’s tex t, (2) the statu te’s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y , or( 3) “an i nher entconfl i ctbetw een arbi t r at i on and the s t atut e’ s under l y i ng purpos es . ” McM ahon , 482 U . S. at227 ( ci t i ng Mi t s ubis hiMot ors C or

p. v. Sol er C hr ys l er - P l ym outh, I

nc. , 4 7 3 U .S . 6 1 4 , 6 2 8 , 6 3 2 -3 7 (1 9 8 5 )) . Shor t l yaft ert he Supr eme C our tdeci ded McM ahon , we appl i ed i t s s t andar d t o a bankrupt cycas e thati s s i m i l art o t he p re s e n t c a s e . See H

ays , 885 F. 2d 1149. I n H ays , w e hel d t hatA t rus t ee i s t he r epr es ent at i ve of t he debt or ’ s es t at e. 11 3 U . S. C . § 323( a) . T he trus t ee ha s the capaci t yt o s ue and be s ued o n b eh alf o f th e d eb tor’s estate. 1 1 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 (b). -19- w her e a pa r t ys eeks t o enfor ce a debt or - der i vat i ve pr e- pet i t i on contr actcl ai m , a courtdoes nothave the di s cr et i on t o deny e n f o rc e m e n t o f

a n o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le a rb itr a tio n c la u s e . See 8 8 5 F .2 d a t 1 1 6 1 . H ays inv o lved a trustee to the d eb tor’s es t at e, br i ngi ng caus es of ac t i on agai ns ta br oker age f i r m that 3 m anage d t w o corpor at e ac count s forthe debt or . T he compl ai nt s al l eged f

eder al and s t at e s ecur i t i es vi ol at i ons , as w el l as s om e s t atut or ycl ai m s cr eat ed bythe B ankrupt cy C ode. T he H

ays C our tw as pr es ent ed w i t h t he ques t i on w hethert he B ankrupt cyC ode conf l i ct s w i t h t he FA A “i n s uch a w ayas t o bes t ow upon a di s t r i ctcour tdi s cr et i on t o decl i ne t o enfor ce a n arbi t r at i on agr eement ” w i t h r es pectt o t he t rus t ee’ s cl ai m s . A ppl y i ng the McM ahon sta n d a rd , w e sa id-20- t hat t he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d t he

author i t yand di s cr et i on t o deny enfor cementof the arbi t r at i on cl aus e un l ess [the trus t ee] had met i t s bur den of s how i ng thatthe t ext, l egis l at i ve h i st ory , or purpo se o f th e B a n k ru p tcy C o d e c o n f licts w i t h t he enf

or cementof an a rb itratio n c lau se in a c a se o f th is k in d , th a t is , a n on -core p ro c e e d in gb ro u g h t b

y a tru ste e to enf or ce a c l ai m of

the es tat e i n a dis tri ctcou rt . H ays , 885 F. 2d at1156- 57 ( emphasi s added) . W e hel d t hat w hethert he McM

ahon s t andar d i s m etdet erm i nes w hetherthe cou rthas t he d i scr et i on t o d enyenfo rcem ent of an o t herw i se a p p lic a b le a rb itr a tio n c la u s e . See H ays , 8 8 5 F .2 d a t 1 1 5 6 -5 7 . See al s o N at ’ lG yps um , 1 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 6 7 (“ T h e ‘d is c re tio n ’ . .

. s houl d exi s tonl yw her e a pa r t i cul arbankrupt cypr ocee di ng m eet s t he s t andar d fornonenfor cementof an a rbi t r at i on cl aus e s etfor t h i n McM ahon . . .. ” ). T h e sta rtin g p o in t is-21- McM ahon . T h e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt a n d D istric t C o u rt, how ever , appl i ed the McM ahon s t andar d aft erdet erm i ni ng t hatt he B ankrupt cyC our thad the di s cr et i on t o deny arbi t r at i on. T hos e court s appl i ed McM ahon t o det erm i ne w h e th e r th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt s hould h a v e e x e rc ise d its di s cr et i on, r athert han t o det erm i ne w hetheri thad the di s cr et i on t o exer ci s e. T hi s appr oach i s notw hati s r equi r ed b y McM ahon and H

ays . M i nt ze c ont ends , and the D i s t r i ctC our thel d, thatour H ays d e c is io n p ri m a ri ly ap p lie s to n o n -c o re p ro c e e d in g s . See In re Mi ntz e , No . 0 3 - 2 1 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 WL 2 2 7 0 1 0 2 0 , a t* 2 ( E . D. P a. N o v . 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 ) (Mintze II ) ( ci t i ng U

. S. Li nes , 197 F. 3d at 6 4 0 ; P a r d o v . P a c ific a r e o f T ex ., In c . (In r e A PF

C o .) , 264 B .R . 3 4 4 , 3 6 1 -6 2 (B a n k r. D . D e l. 20 0 1 ); W ei ns t ock v . Fr ank ( I n r e W ei ns t ock) , N o . 9 6 -31 1 4 7 D W S , 1 9 9 9 B an k r. L E X IS 6 1 6 , at * 2 3 (B a n k r. E .D . P a . 1 9 9 9 ); Sa cred Heart Sacr ed-22- HeartH osp. v. Indepe nd ence B l ue C ross ( In re Sacred Heart H o s p .) , 1 8 1 B .R . 1 9 5 , 2 0 2 (B a n k r. E .D . P a . 1 9 9 5 ); I n r e FRG , 1 1 5 B. R. 7 2 , 7 4 ( E. D. P a . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . Th i s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n s t e ms fr om t he emphas i zed c l aus e of the above quot ed pas s age: “a non- cor e pr ocee di ng br oughtbya trus t ee t o enfor ce a cl ai m of t he es t at e i n a di s t r i ctcour t . ” W e di s agr ee w i t h t hi s i nt erpr et at i on – thatthe appl i cat i on of H

ays is lim ited to n o n -c o re p ro c e e d in g s. F irst, H ays app l i ed the Su prem e C ou rt ’s McM ahon s t andar d, w hi ch appl i es t o al l s t atut or ycl ai m s s ubj ectt o appl i cabl e arbi t r at i on clau ses, no t j u st t o tho se c lai m s arisi n g in n o n -co re bankrupt cypr ocee di ngs . Second, the H ays deci s i on di d not seek t o d i st i ng uis h b et w een co re and n on -cor e proceed i ng s; r ather , i ts oughtt o di s t i ngui s h betw een c aus es of ac t i on der i ved fr om t he debt orand bankrupt cyact i ons thatthe B ankrupt cyC ode cr eat ed forthe bene fi tof the cr edi t or s of the-23- e s ta te . See Nat ’ lG

yps um , 118 F. 3d at1068 ( quot i ng In re Stat ew i de , 159 B . R . at722) ( hol di ng thatthe r el evant di s t i nct i on i n H

ays i s t h a tb e t we e n d e b t o r - d e r i v a t i v e c l a i ms and B ankrupt cyC ode es t abl i s hed cl ai m s , and notthe di s t i nct i on betw een c or e and non- cor e pr ocee di ngs ) . T hi r d, th e tw o c a se s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c ited f ro m o th e r c irc u its t o sup po rti t s holdi ng that the B ank rupt cyC ou rtdid not abuse its d isc re tio n , ac tu a llysu p p o rt th e c o n ten tio n th a t H ays appl i es t o core pr ocee di ngs . T he D i s t r i ctC our tci t ed U ni t ed Stat es Li nes and N

at i onalG

yps um . B oth of thes e ca s es ex p resslystat e tha t a find ing that a p roc ee d ing is a co re pr ocee di ng does notaut om at i cal l ygi ve a ba nkrupt cycour tthe d isc re tio n to d e n ya rb itratio n . R a th e r, th o se c a se s in d ica te t hatt he McM

ahon s t andar d m us ts t i l l be s at i s fi ed bef or e a b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt h a s s u c h d is c re tio n . See U . S. Li nes , 197 F .3 d a t 6 4 0 ; N

at ’ lG yps um , 118 F. 3d at1067.-24- W e fi nd t hatt he s t andar d w e art i cul at ed i n H ays a p p lie s e q u a lly to c o re a n d n o n -c o re p ro c e e d in g s . S ee N a t’ l G yps um , 118 F. 3d at1067 ( “[W ] e bel i eve that nonenfor cementof an otherw i s e appl i cabl e arbi t r at i on provis i on turns on the un derl y i ng natur e of the proceed i ng s, i . e. , w hethert he pr ocee di ng der i ves excl us i vel yfr om the pr ovi s i ons of the B ankrupt cyC ode and, i f s o, w hetherthe arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng w oul d confl i ctw i t h t he purpos es of the C o d e .” ). See a l

so P ardo v. P acif

i care of Tex. , Inc. (

In re APF) , 264 B . R . 344, 362 ( B ankr . D . D el . 2001) ( ci t i ng N a t’ l G yps um , 1 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 6 7 ; Selcke v. N ew E ngl and I

ns . C o. , 9 9 5 F . 2 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 1 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 3 )) ( h o lding that in a c o re pr ocee di ng, t he McM

ahon stan d ard m u st be sati sfied b ef o re th e b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt h a s th e d is c re tio n to d e n ya rb itr a tio n ). W h e re a n o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le a rb itr a tio n c la u s e e x is ts , a b a n k ru p tcy co u rt lac k s th e a u th o ritya n d d isc re tio n to d e n yits-25- e n f o rc e m e n t, un l ess t he part yoppos i ng arbi t r at i on can es t abl i s h congr es s i onal i nt ent , underthe McM ahon s t andar d, to p re c lu d e w a iv e r o f

ju d icia l re m e d ies f

o r th e sta tu to ryrig h ts ati s s ue. O urt as k t hen i s t o det erm i ne w hetherM i nt ze ha s es t abl i s hed congr es s i onal i nt entt o pr ecl ude w ai verof j udi ci al r emedi es fort he s t atut oryr i ght s ati s s ue. W e fi nd no evi dence of s uch i nt enti n ei t herthe s t atut oryt extorthe l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof the B ankrupt cyC ode. W e ar e, ther efor e, l eftt o det erm i ne w hetherther e i s an i nher entconfl i ctbetw een arbi t r at i on and the B ankrupt cyC ode. T h e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e u lti m a te deci s i on on M i nt ze’ s r es ci s s i on cl ai m w i l l have a n eff ecton th e ri g h ts o f

th e o th e r c re d ito rs to M in tz e ’s e s ta te . D e ter m in in g th a t th e p o ten tial e f f e c t o n th e o rd e r o f

p rio rity and the amountof di s t r i but i on t o M i nt ze’ s ot hercr edi t or s w asSee supra n.2. 4 -26- s uffi ci entt o cr eat e an i nher entconfl i ctbetw een the B ankrupt cyC ode’ s under l y i ng purpos es and arbi t r at i on, the B ankrupt cyC our tconcl uded thatthe pr ocee di ng w as bes tl eft i n t he B ankrupt cyC our t . T he D i s t r i ctC our taff i r m ed the B ankrupt cyC our t , s t at i ng thati t s deci s i on w as “w i t hi n t he appr opr i at e bounds of di s cr et i on . . . . ” W e c a n n o t ag re e w ith th is c o n c lu sio n . F irst, to overr i de the FA A ’ s m andat e forenfor cementof arbi t r at i on, t he McM ahon sta n d a rd re q u ire s c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t “to pr ecl ude a w ai verof j udi ci al r emedi es forthe sta tu to ry rig h ts ati s s ue. ” McM

ahon , 482 U . S. at227 ( emphasi s added) . T he s t atut or ycl ai m s t hatM i nt ze ha s r ai s ed ar e bas ed on TILA and s ever al fede r al and s t at e cons um erpr ot ect i on l aw s . M i nt ze 4 has fai l ed t o r ai s e anys t atut orycl ai m s thatw er e cr eat ed by-27- t he B ankrupt cyC ode. W i t h no bankrupt cyi s s ue t o be deci ded byt he B ankrupt cyC our t , w e ca nnotfi nd an i nher ent c o n f lict b e tw e e n a rb itratio n o f M in tze ’s f

e d e ra l an d sta te cons um erpr ot ect i on i s s ues and the under l y i ng purpos es of the B a n k ru p tc yC o d e . Second, w e fi nd thi s cas e verys i m i l art o H ays . In H ays , t he trus t ee s oughtt o enfor ce a cl ai m i ti nher i t ed fr om the d eb tor i n an ad v ersa ri al pro ce ed ing in a d istri ct co u rt . In t hatcas e, “w e per cei v[ed] no adver s e ef fec ton t he under l y i ng purpos es of the [Bankrupt cy ] C ode fr om enfor ci ng arbi t r at i on–cert ai nl yno adver s e ef fec tof s uffi ci entm agni tude t o r el i eve a di s t r i ctcour tof i t s m andat orydutyunderthe A rbi t r at i on A ct. . . . ” H ays , 885 F. 2d at1161. H er e, the d eb tor h erse lf see k s to e n fo rce a c lai m in an ad v ersa ry p ro c e e d in g in a b a n k ru p tcy co u rt. If a rb itratio n is e n f o rc e d in th is c a se , w e lik e w ise c a n n o t p e rc e iv e o f a su f f icie n tly-28- adver s e ef

fec ton t he under l y i ng purpos es of the B ankrupt cy C o d e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt e rre d w h e n it det erm i ned i thad the di s cr et i on t o denyenfor cementof the arbi t r at i on pr ovi s i on i n t he contr actbetw een M i nt ze a nd A G F. C. M i nt ze a l s o ar gues thatA G F’ s cl ai m s ar e barr ed bythe do ct ri ne o f j ud i ci al est op pel and t his C ou rt ’s rul e against r ai s i ng new i s s ues on appea l . T he doctr i ne of j udi ci al e sto p p e l p re v e n ts a p a rtyf ro m a ss e rtin g in c o n sis ten t cla im s in d if f e re n t le g a l p ro c e e d in g s . See New H am ps hi r e v. Mai ne , 532 U . S. 742, 749 ( 2001) ( quot i ng 18 J AMES W M . M OO RE ET AL ., M OORE ’ S F E D E RA L P RAC TI C E § 134. 30, p. 134- 62 ( 3d ed. 2000) ) . J udi ci al es t oppel i s an equi t abl e doctr i ne, w i t hi n t he c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n . See N ew H am pshir e , 5 3 2 U .S . a t 7 5 0 . See al s o F l eck v. K D I Sylvan Pools , I

nc. , 981 F. 2d 107, 121 ( 3d-29- C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (ju d icia l es to p p e l is d e sig n e d to p ro tec t th e c o u rts and nott he l i t i gant s ) . T he doctr i ne w as des i gned t o pr event par t i es fr om “pl ay i ng fas tand l oos e w i t h t he court s . ” Scar no v. C ent . R . R . C o. of

N . J. , 2 0 3 F .2 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 5 3 ). M in tze c laim s th a t A G F sh o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d to as s er tatt he B ankrupt cyC our thear i ng thatthe B ankrupt cy C our thad di s cr et i on and now t o as s ertthatthe B ankrupt cy C o u rt d id n o t h a v e d isc re tio n . W e c h o o se , h o w e v e r, n o t to appl yt he doctr i ne of j udi ci al es t oppel her e. A s w e have al r eadys t at ed, t he s t i pul at i ons of the part i es w er e s t i pul at i ons r egar di ng ques t i ons of l aw . B eca us e w e ar e notbound by t hes e s t i pul at i ons , t her e i s no need f orus t o cons i derj udi ci al e sto p p e l. W e a lso re

jec t M in tze ’s a rg u m e n t th a t A G F ’s c laim t hatt he B ankrupt cyC our tl acks the di s cr et i on t o deny arbi t r at i on s houl d be di s m i s s ed bec aus e A G F i s r ai s i ng the-30- i s s ue fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al . A s a gene r al rul e, w e do not a d d re s s is s u e s th a t a re ra is e d f o r t h e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. See C ont ’ lC as . C o. v. D om i ni ck D ’ A ndr ea, I

nc. , 150 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . W hen the r es ol ut i on of an i s s ue i s of publ i c i m por t ance , how ever , w e mayexer ci s e ourdi s cr et i on a n d a d d re s s is s u e s ra is e d f o r t h e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. See The C ounci lof

A l t er nat i ve Pol i t i cal

P ar t i es v. H

ooks , 179 F. 3d 6 4 , 6 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); L o re ta n g e li v. C rite lli , 853 F. 2d 186, 189 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( ci t i ng D ean W i t t erR eynolds , I

nc. v. Fer nandez , 74 1 F . 2d 35 5, 36 0-61 (11 t h C i r. 19 84 )) . B ecause of the s t r ong fede r al pol i cyi n favorof arbi t r at i on and the i m por t ance of cl ar i fy i ng how i toper at es i n t he bankrupt cy cour ts y s t em, w e have det erm i ned thatthi s cas e i s an a p p ro p ria te s itu a tio n f

o r u s to e x e rc ise o u r d isc re tio n a n d to addr es s t he i s s ue of a bankrupt cycour t ’ s di s cr et i on t o deny arbi t r at i on.-31- I V. W e conc l ude thatthe B ankrupt cyC our tl acke d t he author i t yand the di s cr et i on t o denyenfor cementof the arbi t r at i on pr ovi s i on i n t he contr actbetw een M i nt ze a nd A G F. T he FA A m andat es enfor cementof arbi t r at i on w hen a p p lica b le u n les s C o n g re ss io n a l in ten t to th e c o n tra ryis es t abl i s hed. M i nt ze ha s fai l ed t o demonstr at e thr ough s t atut or yt ext , l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory , orthe under l y i ng purpos es of the B ankrupt cyC ode thatC ongr es s i nt ended t o pr ecl ude w a iv e r o f

ju d icia l re m e d ies f

o r h e r c laim s. T h e re f

o re , w e w ill r ever s e the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t , aff i r m i ng the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s deni al of A G F’ s M ot i on t o C om pel A rbitrati o n , an d w e w il l r em an d this case to the D istri ct C o u rt f o r re m a n d to th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to c o m p e l th e p a rties to e n g a g e in a rb itratio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith t he t erm s of the arbi t r at i on agr eement . Fur t her , w e not e that-32- a t o ra l ar g u m e n t A G F c o n c e d e d th a t if w e w e re to f in d in its f a v o r, a ll of

M i nt z e ’ s c l a i ms, i nc l ud i ng he rTI LA , H O EPA a n d HI F A c l a i ms , we r e s u b j e c tt o a rb i t r a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , we in stru c t th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt o n re m a n d to v a c a te its S ep tem b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , O rde r i n so fa r as itg ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t to A G F o n M in tze ’s T IL A a n d H O P A c laim s a n d to c on fe rw i t h the pa r t i e s c on c e r ni ng the s t a tus of the H I FA cl ai m and w hetheri ts houl d be r ei ns t at ed s i nce i tw as w i t hdr aw n aft ert he mot i on t o arbi t r at e w as fi l ed.