A Denver Credit Union Won't Retreat in Marijuana Banking Fight
Banks and credit unions in states such as California and Colorado, where marijuana is legal, are grappling with regulatory schemes over the processing of cannabis-related transactions. Three lawyers weigh in with takeaways about a recent federal appeals court ruling that addressed one Denver-based credit union's legal fight.
June 30, 2017 at 05:36 PM
6 minute read
A federal appellate panel this week breathed some life into a Denver-based credit union's efforts to open its doors, one day, to marijuana-related businesses.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated a Colorado district court's January 2016 ruling that had tossed out Fourth Corner Credit Union's lawsuit—with prejudice—challenging the Federal Reserve Bank's denial of its request for a master account. Colorado chartered Fourth Corner Credit Union, but the federal account is needed for basic banking transactions.
Fourth Corner's directors had hoped to launch a credit union to service Colorado's legalized recreational marijuana industry. Major banks shun marijuana transactions because federal law still criminalizes the drug. U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the District of Colorado said federal approval of Fourth Corner's account would facilitate criminal activity.
The Tenth Circuit's dense, 64-page decision, based on three distinct opinions from the panel judges, vacated the district court's order. The case will return to Jackson with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice.
As Colorado wrestles with how to bank marijuana businesses, California's treasurer has convened a working group to tackle the same issue before the Golden State launches commercial marijuana permitting on Jan. 1. Treasurer John Chiang has asked the panel of bankers, marijuana representatives and government officials to recommend solutions by the end of the year.
We asked three attorneys for their thoughts on the Colorado appeals court opinion. Here are some of their takeaways.
The ruling was a victory for the credit union—sort of.
The credit union's lawsuit is alive. For now.
“When you start with the district court opinion we appealed, we were dead in the water,” said Mark Mason, Fourth Corner's attorney. “We would have loved to have seen 'reverse' but 'vacate' is good too.”
The plan now is for Fourth Corner to re-apply to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City for a master account. If the application is denied, expect to see the credit union back in court, said Mason, of The Mason Law Firm in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
Mason said he takes encouragement from Tenth Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach's assertion that the district court erred by not taking credit union leaders at their word that they would abide by federal law.
“Had one other judge joined in that opinion we'd be doing backflips off the balcony,” Mason said.
That's the glass-half-full analysis, said Robert McVay of Harris Bricken in Seattle.
“The negative answer is that none of the judges indicated any sympathy for Fourth Corner's original argument that the fed must give them a master account,” McVay said.
Fourth Corner's complaint, in its current form, will not legitimize banking for marijuana businesses.
During litigation, Fourth Corner submitted an amended business plan that said it would only serve supporters of legalized cannabis, not commercial operations, until the federal government removes restrictions on marijuana-related banking.
“It takes years to start a financial institution,” Mason said. “What we're trying to do is just get set up so on day one [of federal banking approval] they're ready to operate.”
The lawsuit's focus is now on whether the Federal Reserve has the legal discretion to reject a properly chartered bank's application for a master account.
“That's good news if you are Fourth Corner and want to open and provide banking services at all, but it doesn't help marijuana businesses,” McVay, the Seattle lawyer, said. “If they explicitly state that they won't provide banking services until doing so is legal, they won't be entering that market for years, and they'll be going up against every other big bank out there. When it is legal, everyone will do it.”
Stanley Jutkowitz, senior counsel at Seyfarth Shaw's Washington office, said the appellate ruling “is not a big deal” in terms of clarifying the state-federal conflict over marijuana banking.
“They [Fourth Corner] say they're going to serve people who support the legalization of marijuana. Well so what?” Jutkowitz said. “You could walk into a Bank of America and they might bank you for that. It's just another advocacy group.”
The marijuana banking dilemma will not be solved any time soon.
In 2014, the U.S. Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, issued guidance saying banks could provide accounts to marijuana-related businesses in legalized states if they and their customers met a long list of requirements. The advisory has not unleashed banking services for the cannabis industry.
“Marijuana is still illegal, and the FinCEN and Justice Department guidance were just that—guidance,” Jutkowitz said. “They weren't legally binding precedent.”
Some smaller financial institutions do handle marijuana-related customers openly. Others do so quietly, even going so far as requiring their customers to agree not to disclose where they do their banking, Jutkowitz said.
“Some of the banks are really acting as vaults,” he said. “They're not providing a full array of banking services. They're just basically taking deposits and holding the money.”
Congressional representatives from marijuana-legal states introduced legislation this spring that would create protections for financial institutions doing business with legitimate commercial marijuana operations. But efforts to aid legal recreational marijuana businesses have not typically fared well in Congress.
So the Fourth Corner Credit Union waits, litigates a more nuanced battle over the Federal Reserve's authority and plans to serve cannabis supporters, not businesses.
“That's all we can be right now,” Mason said. “We cannot be more.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
DOJ Files Antitrust Suit Against Visa Alleging It Thwarts Payment-Processing Rivals
Trending Stories
- 1DOT Nominee Duffy Pledges Safety, Faster Infrastructure Spending in Confirmation Hearing
- 2'Younger and Invigorated Bench': Biden's Legacy in New Jersey Federal Court
- 3'Every Single Judge on Board': First-Impression Case Revived
- 4NYSBA Annual Meeting: How In-House Counsel Navigate Gen AI Risk
- 5A Judge Ordered Squabbling Lawyers to Have Lunch: Here's What Happened
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250