Whether the severability doctrine applies to determine arbitrability in the absence of clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties delegated that issue to an arbitrator, whether courts must rely on state or federal law in determining if a contractual defense is one of contract formation or validity, and whether a contractual defense directed solely at the arbitration provision must be decided by an arbitrator simply because it could apply to other contract provisions

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the severability doctrine first announced in Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 402-05 (1967), applies in determining who decides arbitrability in the absence of clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties delegated that issue to an arbitrator, as required by First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944-45 (1995). 2. Whether courts must rely on state law or federal law in determining whether a contractual defense to arbitration is one of contract formation or one of validity for purposes of applying the severability doctrine. 3. Whether a contractual defense directed solely to the validity of an arbitration provision must be decided by an arbitrator simply because that defense could apply to other provisions in the contract containing the arbitration provision.