question, charge, complaint, or grievance believed to constitute a breach or violation’ of the Agreement.” Id. at 810 (alteration in original); see also Local 637, 13 F.3d at 132. This conclusion also is supported by the directives in Mitsubishi Motors and J.J. Ryan to construe international arbitration clauses especially broadly. The claims involving fraudulent, negligent, or innocent representations involve statements which relate to Telcor’s status as a telecommunications company, its capabilities, equipment and expertise. The statements allegedly made by, or on behalf of Telcor, relate to “factual issues arising in connection with the contract [ ],” J.J. Ryan, 863 F.2d at 319, and are therefore arbitrable under the Contract. See Scherk, 417 U.S. at 508 n. 1, 94 S.Ct. at 2452 n. 1 (<HOLDING>). Alamria contends that Telcor’s alleged
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 a clause covering any controversy or claim  related directly or indirectly to this agreement was a broad arbitration clause holding that a clause requiring arbitration of any controversy or claim that shall arise out of this agreement or the breach thereof was sufficiently broad to cover a 1934 securities act claim involving fraudulent misrepresentation holding that claims of breach of fiduciary duty negligence and fraud were subject to arbitration in light of broad arbitration clause which called for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of or relating to this agreement breach thereof or any aecounts   holding that a clause requiring arbitration wjhenever any question or dispute shall arise or occur under this agreementcontract was sufficiently broad to cover a claim of fraudulent inducement