Arkansas Senate Bill SB383

Arkansas 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/5/25
• Refer: 3/5/25
• Report Pass: 3/12/25
• Engrossed: 3/13/25
• Refer: 3/13/25
• Report Pass: 3/20/25
• Enrolled: 4/2/25
• Chaptered: 4/7/25
• Passed: 4/7/25

Caption

To Repeal The Annual Report Required Under The Venture Capital Investment Act Of 2001.

Impact

The repeal of the annual reporting requirement is expected to have a significant impact on state laws governing venture capital investments. Supporters of the bill argue that removing the reporting obligations will encourage more investment in Arkansas by making it easier for venture capital firms to operate without the overhead of compliance costs associated with the report. This could potentially stimulate economic growth by attracting more capital to the state's startups and innovative sectors.

Summary

Senate Bill 383 aims to repeal the requirement for an annual report under the Venture Capital Investment Act of 2001. This law initially mandated that investor groups within the state provide a comprehensive report detailing their activities, financial audits, and progress in implementing their investment plans. By eliminating this requirement, the bill seeks to reduce regulatory burdens on these investor groups, allowing for greater flexibility in their operations and investment strategies.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding SB383 appears to be positive among its proponents, who view the repeal as a necessary step to foster a more business-friendly environment. However, there are valid concerns from some lawmakers who emphasize the need for transparency and accountability in investment practices. Critics argue that without regular reporting, oversight may diminish, increasing the risk of unethical practices within the venture capital space.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between fostering business growth and ensuring adequate regulatory oversight. While the repeal of the reporting requirement is positioned as a way to streamline operations for investor groups, opponents highlight the importance of maintaining transparency to safeguard against potential misuse of funds. The debate raises critical questions about how best to support economic development while also holding investment groups accountable for their financial activities.