887 (2d Cir.1985) (“Clearly, the policies underlying the federal arbitration act favor enforcement of agreements to arbitrate disputes.”). However, the parties agree that this policy of enforcement of arbitration agreements is qualified and such agreements are not to be enforced where Congress, by a separate statute, sets forth a conflicting framework for dispute resolution. As stated by the Supreme Court, “[l]ike any statutory directive, the Arbitration Act’s mandate may be overridden by a contrary congressional command.” Shearson/American Exp. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2337, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987). See also, United States Lines, Inc. v. American Steamship Oumers Mutual Protection and Indemnity Assoc., Inc. (In re U.S. Lines, Inc.), 197 F.3d 631, 640 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has established a general
holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration holding that a federal arbitration act mandate including those subject to international agreement may be overridden by a contrary congressional command  such as the mandates set forth in the bankruptcy code holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added holding that the faa mandates courts to direct parties to arbitration on issues to which a valid arbitration agreement has been signed holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute