Bank of the Ozarks Inc. v. Walker, 2013 Ark. App. 517

Bank of the Ozarks appeals the Lonoke County Circuit Court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration of appellees' class-action complaint.
The deposit agreement governing appellees' checking relationships contains an arbitration clause and a class-action waiver.
Appellees allege the bank implemented high-cost debit processing first to maximize overdraft charges.
The circuit court held the arbitration provision unconscionable and unenforceable.
The bank seeks de novo judicial review and reversal to compel arbitration, citing strong public policy favoring arbitration.
On appeal, the court reverses and remands, concluding the record lacks evidence of unconscionability and the clause is mutual and enforceable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence and enforceability of arbitration clause	Arbitration clause exists and is mutual.	Unconscionability excuses arbitration.	Arbitration clause enforceable; remand for arbitration order.
Unconscionability (procedural and substantive)	Unconscionability shown by bargaining power and terms.	No unconscionability proven.	Appellees failed to prove unconscionability; clause enforceable.
Mutuality of the arbitration obligation	Clause allows either party to choose arbitration.	Clause was one-sided and thus unenforceable.	Arbitration provision is mutual; no lack of mutuality.

Alltel Corp. v. Sumner, 360 Ark. 573 (2005) (threshold inquiry of existence; mutuality matters)
Asbury Auto. Used Car Ctr. v. Brosh, 364 Ark. 386 (2005) (mutuality required; lack of mutuality renders clause void)
Terminix Int'l Co. v. Tiuit, 104 Ark. App. 1 (2008) (arbitration standard of review; unconscionability factors)
Roberts v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 101 Ark. App. 160 (2008) (evidence requirements in unconscionability analysis)
CEI Eng'g Assocs. v. Elder Constr. Co., 306 S.W.3d 447 (Ark. App. 2009) (public policy favoring arbitration; de novo review)