to be able to get the promised “significant investment and tax benefits.” SSW Holding’s allegation that BDO made numerous false representations inducing 11sthem to enter into the arbitration provision, are not persuasive. Although the complaint contains an isolated reference to the arbitration provisions being procured through fraud, the overwhelming majority of the factual allegations in the ninety-seven page complaint focus on the overall grand scheme in the formation of the Consulting Agreements. This type of allegation falls short of what is required to prove procedural unconscionability regarding the arbitration clause. Such a claim is proper for an arbitrator to decide. See Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967) (<HOLDING>); see also Campaniello Imports, Ltd. v.
holding if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself  an issue that goes to the making of the agreement to arbitrate  the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it otherwise claims involving the contract generally should be decided by the arbitrator 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 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 the language of the arbitration clause   any controversy or claim arising out of     was broad enough to encompass the plaintiffs claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract holding that the issue of whether contract which contained arbitration agreement was illegal should be properly decided by arbitrator not court