HB1466
To Amend The Fair Mortgage Lending Act.
AI-Generated Summary
This bill proposes amendments to the Fair Mortgage Lending Act in Arkansas. The primary focus of the proposed changes is the modification of definitions within the Act. Specifically, it renumbers and revises several definitions, including those for 'Affiliate,' 'Allowable assets for liquidity,' 'Applicant,' 'Authorized user,' 'Board of directors,' 'Branch manager,' 'Branch office,' 'Commissioner,' 'Consumer,' 'Control,' 'Control affiliate,' 'Control person,' 'Corporate governance,' 'Covered institution servicer,' 'Customer,' 'Customer information,' 'Customer relationship,' 'Employee,' 'Encryption,' 'Exempt person,' 'External audit,' 'Financial institution,' 'Financial product or service,' 'Information security program,' and 'Information system.' It also revises the effective date references for certain exempted entities within the definition of 'Exempt person.' The bill aims to update and clarify these foundational terms within the existing legal framework governing mortgage lending in Arkansas.
Potential Impact Analysis
Who Might Benefit?
The primary beneficiaries of this bill, if enacted, would be mortgage lending institutions and their operational staff within Arkansas. By clarifying and updating definitions related to licensing, oversight, and exemptions under the Fair Mortgage Lending Act, the bill could provide greater clarity and potentially streamline compliance processes for these entities. This may lead to reduced ambiguity in regulatory requirements, potentially making it easier for businesses to understand and adhere to the law. Additionally, consumers could indirectly benefit from clearer regulatory definitions that are intended to foster a fairer and more transparent mortgage lending environment.
Who Might Suffer?
It is difficult to identify specific groups that would be directly and negatively impacted by this bill as its primary action is to amend definitions within existing law. The bill focuses on renumbering and clarifying terms, rather than introducing new prohibitions or significant new compliance burdens. Therefore, any negative impact would likely stem from the indirect consequences of these definitional changes. For instance, if a previously understood exemption or category is narrowed or redefined in a way that brings more entities under stricter regulation, those entities might experience an increased compliance burden. However, without specific details on how these definitions might alter existing regulatory interpretations or obligations, it is not possible to pinpoint precise negatively impacted groups.