Granite Rock amend that distinc tion. Granite Rock, 130 S.Ct. at 2860 n. 9, n. 11. Instead, Granite Rock states explicitly that once a court is satisfied with the “formation of the parties’ arbitration agreement” and “the applicability of the specific arbitration clause that a party seeks to have the court enforce,” id. at 2854, reference to an arbitrator to resolve any outstanding issues is appropriate. With the district court having satisfied itself that the Exchange Agreement was a binding contract, asking the district court to assess the validity of the Exchange Agreement relative to a broader, unexecuted agreement would be an invasion of the responsibility that the Supreme Court has reserved for the arbitrator. See, e.g., Buckeye Check Cashing, 546 U.S. at 448-49, 126 S.Ct. 1204 (<HOLDING>); Benoay v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 805
holding validity challenges to a whole contract go to the arbitrator holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator holding that whether in federal or state court a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it must go to the arbitrator and not the court holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator holding defenses concerning the contract as a whole must be referred to ah arbitrator while defenses to the arbitration provision itself are considered by the court