Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-26-1104 (2026)

Corporate action and remedies after dissolution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A dissolved corporation, its directors, officers, and shareholders, may continue to function for the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of the corporation in the same manner as if the dissolution had not taken place. For this limited purpose, the existence of the corporation as a legal entity shall be preserved indefinitely without franchise tax liability.
  2. In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
    1. The directors of a dissolved corporation shall not be deemed to be trustees of its assets; title to the assets shall not vest in them or in the shareholders but shall remain in the corporation until transferred by it in its corporate name;
    2. Dissolution shall not change quorum or voting requirements of the board or shareholders or provisions regarding election, appointment, resignation, removal of, or filling vacancies among directors or officers or provisions regarding amendment or repeal of bylaws or adoption of new bylaws. In other words, subject to the limitation that the activities of the corporation shall be restricted to winding up its affairs, all of the predissolution powers and procedures shall be preserved indefinitely;
    3. Shares of the corporation may be transferred;
    4. The corporation may sue or be sued in its corporate name in all courts and participate in actions and proceedings, whether judicial, administrative, or otherwise, in its corporate name. Process may be served upon it or upon its behalf in the same manner as if there had been no dissolution;
    5. The dissolution of a corporation shall not affect any remedy available to or against the corporation, its directors, officers, or shareholders, for any right or claim existing or any liability which is incurred before the dissolution except as provided in § 4-26-1105 (notice to creditors) or § 4-26-1106 (jurisdiction of court to supervise liquidation).

History. Acts 1965, No. 576, § 86; A.S.A. 1947, § 64-904.

Case Notes

Corporation with Forfeited Charter.

Since a corporation with a forfeited charter continues to have vitality as a dissolved corporation, its powers should be at least equivalent to those of a dissolved corporation winding up its affairs. Gibson v. Dennis (In re Russell), 123 B.R. 48 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1990).

A dissolved corporation retains legal title to its assets until a proper conveyance to the shareholders, and it follows that a corporation with a forfeited charter would likewise retain legal title. Gibson v. Dennis (In re Russell), 123 B.R. 48 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1990).

This section clearly provides that a dissolved corporation has the power to sue and defend, and no Arkansas case under the applicable statutory scheme has held that a corporation whose charter has been forfeited has lost its capacity to sue. Gibson v. Dennis (In re Russell), 123 B.R. 48 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1990).

Suits.

A corporation, even though dissolved, may continue the defense of a suit. Hirsch v. Walker, 212 Ark. 79, 204 S.W.2d 904 (1947) (decision under prior law).

A derivative action, brought by certain shareholders of company seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained by corporation against certain claimants survived the filing of the certificate of dissolution of the company. Raines v. Toney, 228 Ark. 1170, 313 S.W.2d 802 (1958) (decision under prior law).

Tax Liability.

The enactment of this section did not make the corporation liable for income tax on profit realized from the sale of its assets pursuant to liquidation for distribution to the shareholders, but such liability was upon the shareholders. Larey v. Mountain Valley Spring Co., 245 Ark. 689, 434 S.W.2d 820 (1968).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2009 · leading case: Gibson v. Dennis (In Re Russell), 123 B.R. 48 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1990).
Gibson v. Dennis (In Re Russell), 123 B.R. 48 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1990). · cites it 4× “Process may be served upon it or upon its behalf in the same manner as if there had been no dissolution^] Ark.Code Ann. § 4-26-1104 (1987). Since a corporation with a forfeited charter continues to have more vitality as a dissolved corporation, its powers should be at least…”
Barry J. Jewell v. United States (8th Cir. 2008). “2 And the record contains no evidence that Jewell obtained JMFH’s causes of action as part of the distribution of 2 Contrary to Jewell’s assertions, the fact that JMFH had been dissolved is of no consequence to its ability to raise a claim against the IRS because Ark. Code Ann.…”
Charles Brooks Co. v. Georgia-Pac. (8th Cir. 2009). “The bankruptcy court relied upon (1) Ark. Code Ann. § 4-26-1104 , which allows a corporation to sue; and (2) its finding that “[no] Arkansas case .”
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.