Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-607 (2026)

Attorney's fees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if:

  1. A claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith;
  2. A motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith; or
  3. Willful and malicious misappropriation exists.

History. Acts 1981, No. 439, § 4; A.S.A. 1947, § 70-1004.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Speed, Attorney's Fees Awards in Federal Court: An Arkansas Study, 39 Ark. L. Rev. 99 (1985).

Case Notes

Appellate review.

The denial of fees and costs under this provision is reviewed on appeal under the clearly erroneous standard. Hardwick Airmasters v. Lennox Indus., Inc., 78 F.3d 1332 (8th Cir. 1996).

Because an employee voluntarily paid a corporation the amount of attorney's fees ordered, his appeal of the attorney's fees award was moot. LaPointe v. New Tech., Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 346, 437 S.W.3d 126 (2014).

Calculation of Fees.

Counter-claimant was entitled to attorney's fees under § 16-22-308 for the portion of a lawsuit primarily driven by the contract claims, as well as fees for work primarily driven by the trade secret claims, pursuant to this section. The trial court determined that the counter-claimant was entitled to $2,174,073.11 in attorney's fees. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, No. 5:14-CV-5262, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55242 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 31, 2018).

Evidence.

Evidence was sufficient to show willful misappropriation of the plaintiff's trade secret and, therefore, attorneys' fees were properly awarded, where one of the parties involved in the use of the plaintiff's trade secret required the defendant to indemnify it for any liability it might incur for theft of the trade secret. Saforo & Assocs. v. Porocel Corp., 337 Ark. 553, 991 S.W.2d 117 (1999).

Cited: Pro-Comp Mgmt. v. R.K. Enters., LLC, 372 Ark. 190, 272 S.W.3d 91 (2008).

Subchapter 7 — Unfair Cigarette Sales Act

Preambles. Acts 1951, No. 101, contained a preamble which read:

“Whereas, unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive and fraudulent business practices existing in transactions involving the sale of, offer to sell, or inducement to sell, cigarettes in the wholesale and retail trades in this State have been and are demoralizing and disorganizing said trades; and

“Whereas, the advertising, offering for sale, or sale of cigarettes below cost in the wholesale or retail trades with the intent of injuring competitors or destroying or substantially lessening competition, is an unfair and deceptive business practice; and

“Whereas, it is hereby declared to be the policy of this State to promote the public welfare by prohibiting such sales, and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prohibited, and it is the purpose of this act to carry out that policy in the public and in the State's interest … .”

Effective Dates. Acts 1999, No. 1237, § 8: Apr. 8, 1999. Emergency clause provided: “It is hereby found and determined by the Eighty-second General Assembly that the Arkansas Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, 4-75-701, sets minimum selling prices for wholesale and retail sales of cigarettes in Arkansas. Although the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act contains a licensing requirement for wholesalers and retailers, its main purpose is to establish fair and lawful competition in the wholesale and retail sale of cigarettes in Arkansas. Prior to the creation of the Tobacco Control Board in 1997, the Revenue Division of the Department of Finance and Administration has been responsible for administering the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety shall become effective on the date of its approval by the Governor. If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, it shall become effective on the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill. If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, it shall become effective on the date the last house overrides the veto.”

Acts 2003, No. 627, § 6: Mar. 24, 2003. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the Eighty-Fourth General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Arkansas Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, § 4-75-701 et seq., sets minimum selling prices for wholesale and retail sales of cigarettes in Arkansas; that the purpose of the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act is to promote the fair and lawful competition in the wholesale and retail sale of cigarettes in the State of Arkansas; that confusion has arisen as to the proper application of the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act in light of certain promotional activities of cigarette manufacturers; that the confusion threatens to negatively impact fair and lawful competition in the wholesale and retail sale of cigarettes in the State of Arkansas; and that the confusion threatens to negatively impact the proper and lawful collection of the gross receipts tax. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto.”

Acts 2003, No. 1808, § 2: May 6, 2003. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the provisions of Arkansas Code § 4-75-709(b) and (c) were added by Act 627 of 2003; that that act is now in effect; that certain provisions of those two subsections are incapable of being properly administered; that this act removes those provisions; and that until this act goes into effect, the law will contain an impossible mandate. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto.”

Acts 2015, No. 1235, § 34: Emergency clause failed to pass. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the state must be able to plan and give effective notice for the new comprehensive permits created by this act; that it is essential to the operation of Arkansas Tobacco Control and the tobacco, vapor product, and alternative nicotine product industry that this act be effective on the renewal date for permits issued by Arkansas Tobacco Control to ensure proper funding for the enforcement of the new regulations and requirements of this act; that a delay in the effectiveness of this act after the renewal date of permits and regulations issued by Arkansas Tobacco Control may cause irreparable harm upon the proper administration and provision of essential governmental programs; and that this act is necessary to ensure that the industry and the citizens of Arkansas are provided guidance regarding permits for vapor products and alternative nicotine products. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on May 1, 2015.”

Acts 2019, No. 1071, § 31: Emergency clause failed to pass. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that renewals of permits under the Arkansas Tobacco Products Tax Act of 1977 are due on June 30 of each year; that changes in the permitting process should be effective before the date for renewals to ensure the efficient and effective administration of the Arkansas Tobacco Products Tax Act of 1977; and that this act is necessary because the implementation of the new permit types and permit fees included in the act requires that the effective date be before the due date for renewals. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on May 1, 2019”.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

The statutory scheme under this subchapter is not unconstitutional since it provides for the rational connection between the presumed cost-of-doing business and minimizing-price amounts in this subchapter and Miscellaneous Tax Regulation 1988-2 and the presumed fact of predatory intent provided. McLane Co. v. Weiss, 332 Ark. 284, 965 S.W.2d 109 (1998).

Construction With Other Law.

Section 26-57-256(a)(5)(A) clearly permits the Arkansas Tobacco Control Board to conduct hearings regarding any permit or license in violation of the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act. H.T. Hackney Co. v. Davis, 353 Ark. 797, 120 S.W.3d 79 (2003).

Costs of Doing Business.

Finding against a cigarette wholesaler with regard to the cost of doing business was improper in part where the Arkansas Tobacco Control Board's regulation did not fall within the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act's provision, thus, the four percent cost of doing business was improper; however, the two percent presumptive cost of doing business would then govern, thereby triggering the other valid remaining provisions of the regulation. McLane Co. v. Davis, 353 Ark. 539, 110 S.W.3d 251 (2003).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc. v. R.K. Enter., LLC, 272 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. 2008).
Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc. v. R.K. Enter., LLC, 272 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 8× “Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Second, TRS argues that the circuit court erred in failing to award attorneys’ fees under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-607 (3) (Repl. 2001), and costs under Ark.”
Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc. v. R.K. Enter., LLC, 237 S.W.3d 20 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 4× “TRS also argues that the circuit court erred in failing to award attorney's fees as allowed for willful or malicious misappropriation under Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-607 (Repl.2001). The order appealed from contains no reference to attorney's fees.”
Saforo & Assocs., Inc. v. Porocel Corp., 991 S.W.2d 117 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 4× “00 under Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-607 (Repl.1996) because appellants willfully misappropriated Porocel's trade secret.”
LaPointe v. New Tech., Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 346 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Motion to Dismiss/Whether the Trial Court Erred in Awarding Attorney’s Fees For his second point on appeal, La-Pointe argues that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to NTI prior to making a final ruling on the merits of the case and without making any factual…”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC (W.D. Ark. 2018). · cites it 4× “” See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-607 (3). In calculating a reasonable fee, a number of factors should be considered, including: (1) the experience and ability of the attorney; (2) the time and labor required to perform the service properly; (3) the amount in controversy and the…”
Consol. Sawmill Mach. Int'l, Inc. v. Hi-Tech Eng'g, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 945 (E.D. Ark. 1995). · cites it 4× “Likewise, the prevailing party in a misappropriation of trade secrets case may seek recovery of an award of attorney’s fees under Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-607. In both instances, the decision on such a request is left to the discretion of the trial court.”
Hardwick Airmasters v. Lennox Indus. (8th Cir. 1996). “5 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-607 provides: 18 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-607(3) — 1 case
Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc. v. R.K. Enter., LLC, 272 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. 2008). “Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Second, TRS argues that the circuit court erred in failing to award attorneys’ fees under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-607 (3) (Repl. 2001), and costs under 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.