in cases where, as here, the parties have specified an exclusive arbitral forum, but that forum is no longer available. Some courts, particularly the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have held that Section 5 does not apply in such instances. See In re Salomon Inc. S’holders’ Derivative Litig., 68 F.3d 554, 560 (2d Cir.1995) (defining the term “lapse” in Section 5 to mean “a lapse in time in the naming of the arbitrator or in the filling of a vacancy on a panel of arbitrators, or some other mechanical breakdown in the arbi trator selection process” and holding that Section 5 is therefore inapplicable to cases where the specifically designated arbitrator becomes unavailable); Dover Ltd. v. A.B. Watley, Inc., No. 04-7366, 2006 WL 2987054, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.18, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Other jurisdictions have interpreted Section
holding that if claim is not an allowed secured claim pursuant to section 506a by its terms section 1325a5b is inapplicable recognizing that section 5  is inapplicable when the parties have specified an exclusive arbitral forum but that forum is no longer available holding that section 502 is an exclusive grant of jurisdiction holding that it is a fundamental principle of appellate law that appeal jurisdiction is only available to parties holding that because plaintiff no longer has available administrative remedies his action must be dismissed with prejudice