equitable subordination/recharacterization. The arbitration clause purports to cover any dispute between the parties, even those unrelated to the loan relationship. The language is broad and all encompassing, and in accordance with the majority of courts who have evaluated the scope of such provisions, the court finds that all of the causes of action asserted by the debtor are covered by the arbitration provisions. See, e.g., Cara’s Notions v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 140 F.3d 566, 569 (4th Cir.1998) (finding that an “extremely broad arbitration clause,” which called for arbitration of “[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to ... any aspects of the relationship,” covered all conflicts between the parties); Levin v. Alms and Assocs., Inc., 634 F.3d 260, 267 (4th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 445 F.3d 762 (4th
holding that an arbitration clause encompassing all disputes under a contract covers any dispute between the parties that has a significant relationship to the contract holding in light of the presumption in favor of arbitrability that broad language referring to any dispute encompassed any disputes between the parties past or present holding that the clause any dispute that shall arise between the parties  with reference to the interpretation of this agreement or their rights with respect to any transaction involved was broad holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination recognizing a strong presumption favoring arbitrability