An Act to amend and reenact § 6.2-1379 of the Code of Virginia, relating to financial institutions; out-of-state credit unions.
HB902 amends Virginia law governing out-of-state credit unions that want to do business in the Commonwealth. The bill keeps the existing approval framework but restates the conditions under which the State Corporation Commission must approve an application: the credit union must be properly organized in another state, provide share insurance, show a reasonable need to serve members in Virginia, be supervised by its home-state regulator, and file an application with the Commission.
The bill also specifies the operating rules for approved out-of-state credit unions. They must charge loan rates no higher than Virginia credit unions, follow the same consumer protection laws, maintain a registered agent in Virginia, provide examination reports to the Commission, and disclose to members that they are not regulated, supervised, or insured by Virginia agencies. The bill also preserves the ability of Virginia-chartered credit unions to open offices outside the Commonwealth with Commission approval, and it authorizes the Commission to suspend or revoke an out-of-state credit union’s authority if it fails to comply.
HB902 updates and reenacts § 6.2-1379 of the Code of Virginia, but it does not appear to make a major policy change. Its practical effect is to continue and clarify the statutory conditions for out-of-state credit unions to enter the Virginia market, while preserving regulatory oversight by the State Corporation Commission and consumer disclosure requirements. It affects out-of-state credit unions seeking to operate in Virginia, Virginia-chartered credit unions seeking offices outside the state, and the Commission’s enforcement authority.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes indicating controversy, amendment debate, or opposition. The bill was enacted as Chapter 700, suggesting it moved through the process successfully and likely with general support or at least no visible resistance in the available materials. The overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable, consistent with a technical financial-regulatory update rather than a high-profile policy dispute.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas that could have raised questions in a broader debate include market access for out-of-state credit unions, consumer protection and disclosure requirements, and the scope of the State Corporation Commission’s oversight and enforcement powers. However, the record provided does not show any named opponents, disputed provisions, or recorded disagreements.