Page:Simpson v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC.pdf/8

 that purchases or receives an assignment of ownership of a debt that is in default at the time of assignment provided that the debt buyer: 1) does not attempt to collect debts directly either for itself or others; 2) undertakes collection efforts solely through third-party collection agencies or law firms; 3) maintains no place of business in Arkansas. This resolution is not a change in the law; rather it is a clarification of existing law.

This court has held that while a statutory interpretation by the agency responsible for its execution is not conclusive, it is highly persuasive and should not be reversed unless it is clearly wrong. Holbrook v. Healthport, Inc., 2014 Ark. 146, 432 S.W.3d 593. However, although an agency's interpretation is highly persuasive, when the statute is not ambiguous, as is the case here, this court will not interpret a statute to mean anything other than what it says. ''Yamaha Motor Corp., USA. v. Richard's Honda Yamaha'', 344 Ark. 44, 38 S.W.3d 356 (2001). Thus, we answer the first certified question in the affirmative.

In addressing the second certified question, Simpson contends that Cavalry was required to be licensed by the SBCA under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-301 because Cavalry "purchase[d] and attempt[ed] to collect delinquent accounts or bills." Arkansas Code Annotated § 17-24-301 (Repl. 2010), as amended in 2009, specifically provides,

Unless licensed by the State Board of Collection Agencies under this subchapter it is unlawful to:

(1) Engage in the collection of delinquent accounts, bills, or other forms of indebtedness;

(2) Use a fictitious name or any name other than their own in the collection of their own accounts receivable;

(3) Solicit claims for collection; or

(4) Purchase and attempt to collect delinquent accounts or bills.

(Emphasis added.) Although Cavalry disagrees with Simpson's interpretation for the same reasons addressed above, we find that section 17-24-301 is clear and unambiguous. Cavalry