To amend section 1761.10 of the Revised Code regarding credit union share guaranty corporations.
HB612 revises Ohio law governing credit union share guaranty corporations, which are entities that protect participating credit union share accounts and maintain a guarantee fund. The bill largely restates and reorganizes the existing statutory framework for funding, supervising, and distributing that fund, including rules for capital contributions by participating credit unions, annual adjustments, special assessments, premium assessments, reporting requirements, and procedures for handling defaults, mergers, withdrawals, and dissolution.
A notable addition in the bill is a new dissolution rule for a credit union share guaranty corporation that is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit and is dissolved for reasons outside its control. In that circumstance, after liabilities and dissolution costs are paid, the corporation would first return capital contributions to member credit unions, then transfer remaining assets to a surviving wholly owned subsidiary if one exists, or otherwise distribute remaining assets to participating credit unions based on share balances. The bill also expressly subjects the existing dissolution provision to this new exception.
HB612 would amend section 1761.10 of the Revised Code and repeal the current version of that section, updating the statutory rules that govern credit union share guaranty corporations in Ohio. Its practical effect is to clarify how guarantee funds are maintained and supervised by the superintendent of insurance and the superintendent of credit unions, and to specify how capital contributions, assessments, refunds, and distributions are handled when a participating credit union exits, merges, or defaults. The bill also creates a more detailed asset-distribution framework for certain nonprofit guaranty corporations upon dissolution, affecting participating credit unions and any surviving subsidiary entities.
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from formal debate or roll calls. Based on the text alone, the measure appears technical and administrative rather than controversial, focused on clarifying financial governance and dissolution procedures for credit union guaranty corporations. Because it was introduced and referred to the House Financial Institutions Committee, the available record suggests it was still in an early stage of consideration.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or votes. Potential areas of interest, based on the bill text, include the new dissolution treatment for 501(c)(6) nonprofit guaranty corporations, the priority given to returning capital contributions before other asset distributions, and the continued authority of state regulators to approve or order assessments and fund adjustments. Any disagreement would likely center on how much discretion the corporation and regulators should have over fund levels, assessments, and the allocation of assets on dissolution.