Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 108
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (2026)

Disclosure by arbitrator

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Before accepting appointment, an individual who is requested to serve as an arbitrator, after making a reasonable inquiry, shall disclose to all parties to the agreement to arbitrate and the arbitration proceeding and to any other arbitrators any known facts that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the arbitrator in the arbitration proceeding, including:
    1. a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding; and
    2. an existing or past relationship with any of the parties to the agreement to arbitrate or the arbitration proceeding, their counsel or representatives, a witness, or another arbitrator.
  2. An arbitrator has a continuing obligation to disclose to all parties to the agreement to arbitrate and the arbitration proceeding and to any other arbitrators any facts that the arbitrator learns after accepting appointment which a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the arbitrator.
  3. If an arbitrator discloses a fact required by subsection (a) or (b) to be disclosed and a party timely objects to the appointment or continued service of the arbitrator based upon the fact disclosed, the objection may be a ground under § 16-108-223(a)(2) for vacating an award made by the arbitrator.
  4. If the arbitrator did not disclose a fact as required by subsection (a) or (b), upon timely objection by a party, the court under § 16-108-223(a)(2) may vacate an award.
  5. An arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator who does not disclose a known, direct, and material interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding or a known, existing, and substantial relationship with a party is presumed to act with evident partiality under § 16-108-223(a)(2).
  6. If the parties to an arbitration proceeding agree to the procedures of an arbitration organization or any other procedures for challenges to arbitrators before an award is made, substantial compliance with those procedures is a condition precedent to a motion to vacate an award on that ground under § 16-108-223(a)(2).

History. Acts 2011, No. 695, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1994–2017 · leading case: Hart v. McChristian, 42 S.W.3d 552 (Ark. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hart v. McChristian, 42 S.W.3d 552 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 9× “; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (b). Mistakes of law or fact are insufficient to set aside an award.”
Anthony v. Kaplan, 918 S.W.2d 174 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2× “2 Except for references to other statute numbers, the Missouri statute on vacating arbitration awards is essentially identical to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (a) (1987). 3 We note the exclusion of evidence in an arbitration proceeding, even though admissible under the rules of…”
Lancaster v. West, 891 S.W.2d 357 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2× “ration by appearing at the hearing; (3) that, even if she were subject to arbitration, it was not established that she received sufficient notice and that the trial court erred in finding that she had waived notice by appearing at the hearing; (4) that she was deprived of a…”
Nisha, LLC v. Tribuilt Constr. Grp., LLC, 388 S.W.3d 444 (Ark. 2012). “Plus, after a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award, that party may move the court for an order confirming the award, at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified, corrected, or is vacated.”
Helton v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 285 S.W.3d 676 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “In so finding, the circuit court relied on Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (b) (Repl. 2006), which provides a ninety-day time limit for challenging an arbitration award under the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA).”
Hart v. McChristian, 36 S.W.3d 357 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “An arbitration award may be vacated on the basis of the following grounds set out in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (a) (1987): (1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; (2) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or…”
Davis v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 211 S.W.3d 587 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (Supp. 2003).”
Cloud v. Regions Investments Co., Inc., 98 S.W.3d 846 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “The trial court, therefore, correctly found that service of their motion was governed by Ark.”
Shannon v. Steinberg, 2017 Ark. App. 231 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “The ground claimed by appellant is not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s refusal to vacate the arbitration award under these circumstances.”
Chrobak v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 878 S.W.2d 760 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). “Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-108-212(a) (1987) provides in part: (a) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where: (1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; (2) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a…”
ESI Grp., Inc. v. Brown, 203 S.W.3d 664 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “3d 552 (2001); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (a) (Supp. 2003) (stating grounds for vacating an award).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212(a): 2 cases
Hart v. McChristian, 42 S.W.3d 552 (Ark. 2001). “; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (b). Mistakes of law or fact are insufficient to set aside an award.”
Chrobak v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 878 S.W.2d 760 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). “Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-108-212(a) (1987) provides in part: (a) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where: (1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; (2) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212(b): 3 cases
Hart v. McChristian, 42 S.W.3d 552 (Ark. 2001). “; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (b). Mistakes of law or fact are insufficient to set aside an award.”
Helton v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 285 S.W.3d 676 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). “In so finding, the circuit court relied on Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-212 (b) (Repl. 2006), which provides a ninety-day time limit for challenging an arbitration award under the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA).”
Cloud v. Regions Investments Co., Inc., 98 S.W.3d 846 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court, therefore, correctly found that service of their motion was governed by Ark.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.