Pursuant to this jurisprudence, an insurance coverage dispute, involving a post-petition breach of a pre-petition contract, is a non-core proceeding. See In re Daewoo Motor America, Inc., 302 B.R. 308, 312-13 (C.D. Cal. 2003); see also In re Gurga, 176 B.R. 196, 199 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) (confirming that a state law breach of contract claim is a non-core proceeding). In filing the adversary proceeding, the Trustee sought to enjoin Appellants from prosecuting the Bermuda action, which involved ACE's attempt to compel arbitration of the insurance coverage dispute pursuant to the DO policy's terms.

However, under the facts in this appeal, the Panel need not decide this question. In a somewhat different context, in MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Gurga (In re Gurga), 176 B.R. 196 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), this Panel held, based upon decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2, that a bankruptcy court lacks discretion to stay arbitration of a dispute constituting a noncore proceeding in favor of resolving that dispute in the bankruptcy court. In its decision, the Panel acknowledged the strong federal policy in favor of enforcement of privately made arbitration agreements, and noted that the bankruptcy courts' jurisdiction over noncore matters under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) is nonexclusive.

Slipped Disc Inc. v. CD Warehouse Inc. (In re Slipped Disc Inc.), 245 B.R. 342, 346 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2000). See also Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. NGC Settlement Trust & Asbestos Claims Mgmt. Corp. (In re Nat'l Gypsum Co.), 118 F.3d 1056, 1069 (5th Cir. 1997); MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Gurga (In re Gurga), 176 B.R. 196, 199 (9th Cir. BAP 1994). 2.

Where the issues to be arbitrated do not implicate the right to bankruptcy, the right to a discharge, or some other substantive right created in the Bankruptcy Code, the issues are non-core and suitable for arbitration, even if they arise in a § 157(b) core proceeding. See In re Gurga, 176 B.R. 196, 196, 199 (9th Cir. BAP 1994). Conversely, where the issues to be arbitrated involve exclusively bankruptcy matters, such as the determination of claim priority, such issues should not be submitted to arbitration because they are core bankruptcy matters. In re Guild Music Corp., 100 B.R. 624, 628 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1989). Actions involving issues that "[do] not implicate the provisions and policies of the Code to such an extent that arbitration would interfere with the same," such as breach of contract actions, are non-core proceedings suitable for arbitration. Pisgah Contractors, Inc., 215 B.R. at 684.

Where the issues to be arbitrated do not implicate the right to bankruptcy, the right to a discharge, or some other substantive right created in the Bankruptcy Code, the issues are non-core and suitable for arbitration, even if they arise in a § 157(b) core proceeding. See In re Gurga, 176 B.R. 196, 196, 199 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994). Conversely, where the issues to be arbitrated involve exclusively bankruptcy matters, such as the determination of claim priority, such issues should not be submitted to arbitration because they are core bankruptcy matters.

Examination of the text and purposes of the Bankruptcy Code reveals no hostility to arbitration. In re Mintze, 434 F.3d 222, 231 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding no evidence of congressional intent to preclude waiver of judicial remedies in either the statutory text or the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code); MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Gurga (In re Gurga), 176 B.R. 196, 200 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) (same, citing Mor-Ben Ins. Markets Corp., 73 B.R. 644 (9th Cir. BAP 1987). "To the contrary.

See, e.g., In re Gurga, 176 B.R. 196 (Bankr. App. 9th Cir. 1994). Similarly, there is good authority that postpetition breach of a postpetition contract of which the debtor is a party is a core matter.

Virtually every court that has addressed the issue of a bankruptcy court's discretion, if any, to decline to enforce an arbitration clause after Hays has cited that opinion with approval. See In re Gurga, 176 B.R. 196, 200 (9th Cir. BAP 1994); In re James P. Barkman, Inc., 170 B.R. 321, 323 (Bankr.E.D.Mich. 1994); In re American Freight Sys., Inc., 164 B.R. 341, 346-47 (D.Kan. 1994); In re Hupp Indus., Inc., 157 B.R. 360, 362 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1993); In re P G Drywall and Acoustical Corp., 156 B.R. 704, 705-06 (Bankr.D.Me. 1993); In re Midwest Communications Corp., 144 B.R. 354, 355-56 (Bankr.E.D.Ky. 1992); In re Chorus Data Systems, Inc., 122 B.R. 845, 851-52 (Bankr.D.N.H. 1990).

Many courts have concluded that there is nothing explicit in either the Code's text or legislative history that would establish a broad exception for enforcement of arbitration agreements in bankruptcy. See Hays & Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 885 F.2d 1149, 1161 (3d Cir. 1989); MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Gurga (In re Gurga), 176 B.R. 196, 200 (9th Cir. 1994); N. Parent, 221 B.R. 609, 621 (Bankr. Mass. 1998). Instead, courts that have denied enforcement of an arbitration agreement in bankruptcy

Settled and controlling law holds that the presence of an active dispute over the amount owed takes the action out of the turnover area; one cannot shortcut a breach of contract action with a turnover demand. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Gurga ( In re Gurga), 176 B.R. 196, 199 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994) ("turnover proceedings involve return of undisputed funds. . . . Here, the amounts, if any, owed to Source by MCI are in dispute and this dispute rests on breach of contract issues. . . . Breach of contract actions are noncore claims.") (emphasis in original).