Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-27-101 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Arkansas Business Corporation Act of 1987.”
History. Acts 1987, No. 958, § 64-101.
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
The Series LLC, and a Series of Difficult Questions, 60 Ark. L. Rev. 385.
Comment, Corporate Pre-Organization Liability in an LLC World, 61 Ark. L. Rev. 301.
Case Notes
Cited: Centennial Valley Ranch Management, Inc. v. Agri-Tech Ltd. Partnership, 38 Ark. App. 177, 832 S.W.2d 259 (1992); Terry v. Rice (In re Cheqnet Sys.), 246 B.R. 873 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2000).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1992–2017 · leading case: Pineda v. Manpower Int'l, Inc., 2017 Ark. App. 350 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017).
Pineda v. Manpower Int'l, Inc., 2017 Ark. App. 350 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). “Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-27-101 et seq. (Repl.”
In Re Johnson, 460 B.R. 234 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2011). “The Wingo Act is a sub-provision of the Arkansas Business Corporation Act, found at ArkCode Ann. §§ 4-27-101, et seq. The Wingo Act states that “[a] foreign corporation may not transact business in this state until it obtains a certifícate of authority from the Secretary of…”
Bennett v. Lonoke Bancshares, Inc., 155 S.W.3d 15 (Ark. 2004). “Appellees, the Neil Bennett group, assert that the Arkansas Business Corporation Act of 1987, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 4-27-101 , et seq., controls whether LBI is required to use cumulative voting.”
Johnny's Pizza House, Inc. v. Huntsman, 844 S.W.2d 320 (Ark. 1992). “The first was pecuniary, and the second provided that any contract made in Arkansas was unenforceable by a foreign corporation if the corporation had not filed with the secretary of state and received its certificate of authority.”
Terry v. Rice (In re Cheqnet Sys., Inc.), 246 B.R. 873 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2000). “, does not necessarily mean that a corporation with a revoked charter for failure to comply with the requirements of Arkansas law must have the same rights to sue as a corporation seeking dissolution under the provisions of Arkansas law.”
Centennial Valley Ranch Mgmt., Inc. v. Agri-Tech Ltd. P'ship, 832 S.W.2d 259 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). “See Ark. Code Ann. §4-27-101 (Repl. 1991). The comment to that section states that the Act was based primarily upon the Revised Model Business Corporation Act, which was a product of a committee of the American Bar Association.”
Ray Townsend Farms, Inc. v. Smith, 207 S.W.3d 557 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-27-101 , et seq. (Repl.”
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.