871 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2016). “However, if no statutory text or legislative history exists on underlying bankruptcy issue to be determined in a case involving the Fair Labor Standards Act and contract law and, thus, no inherent conflict). In contrast, eases finding a McMahon conflict concluded that the claims at the center of the dispute were directly related to the Bankruptcy Code. See, e.g., In re Gandy, 299 F.3d 489, 495-500 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirming bankruptcy court’s refusal to enforce arbitration provision because three of debtor’s causes of action derived entirely from rights conferred by the Code, those causes of action predominated, and their resolution implicated matters central to the purposes and policies of the Code); In re Eber, 687 F.3d 1123, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); In re White Mountain Mining Co., L.L.C., 403
holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code holding that because debt or did not raise statutory claims created by the bankruptcy code there was no bankruptcy issue to be decided and no inherent conflict with arbitration holding that common law misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they did not conflict with a fmvss holding that because the claims were dismissed with prejudice there was a final judgment for purposes of appellate review holding that claims were core nondischargeability claims regardless of how they were pled and that allowing an arbitrator to decide issues that aie so closely intertwined with dischargeability would conflict with the underlying purposes of the bankruptcy code