Lawyers' Perspectives on Historic Cannabis Banking Vote
We reached out to attorneys in the cannabis space for their views on the U.S. House vote backing a landmark bill.
September 26, 2019 at 06:08 PM
4 minute read
In a historic vote, the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday approved legislation to shield banks that serve state-licensed cannabis and hemp operators—as well as businesses and insurers that serve those industries—from federal regulators.
The Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act passed on a bipartisan 321-103 vote, marking the first time a stand-alone cannabis policy bill advanced from the House. That it passed so overwhelmingly with significant support from Republicans speaks volumes about the seismic shift in public opinion, and politics, surrounding marijuana.
"This bill is about public safety, accountability and protecting states' rights," the bill's author, Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colorado, said.
We reached out to lawyers in the cannabis space for some of their early observations, and universally the legislation was hailed as "significant." Of course, there's no certainty the bill will ever become law, as it goes over to the Senate. Here are some early reactions from lawyers:
>> Jason Horst, Horst Legal Counsel: "It certainly is significant. Insurance protections were not originally included in the SAFE Banking Act, but were added in June. If it becomes law, I do think that you will see the dam break a great deal with regard to the number of insurers entering the cannabis insurance markets. The changes may not happen overnight in the way that they might with banking, though. Each new carrier will have to do its due diligence to understand how cannabis risks differ from other risks they insure. But, over time, competition in the markets will increase greatly, and prices and terms of available insurance should improve steadily."
>> Rachel Gillette, chairwoman of Greenspoon Marder's cannabis practice: "All-cash business operations are not only a safety issue, but they are a tremendous challenge, and the lack of available banking in a multibillion-dollar industry makes little sense. The lack of banking has only served to undermine states that have chosen the alternative path to end marijuana prohibition. Normalized banking relationships between licensed cannabis businesses and financial institutions adds the level of transparency states have needed in their regulatory efforts to quash the marijuana black market."
>> Anita Boomstein, partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips: "Under the bill, banks still would need to have robust compliance procedures in place to ensure that their cannabis customers are, in fact, operating legally under the relevant state law. But assuming the bank can satisfy that hurdle, the bill would remove the threat of criminal liability, adverse supervisory action by its federal regulator, or seizure of funds from cannabis-related transactions, all of which have haunted banks up until now."
>> Jonathan Havens, partner, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr: "The bill is significant for a few reasons. First, this is the first stand-alone cannabis reform bill that has reached the House floor. Second, this legislation would help address one of the cannabis industry's primary challenges: Finding financial institutions that will take them on as customers. Third, once implemented, the bill could pave the way for commercial lending and capital markets opportunities for plant-touching U.S. entities. Now, the bad news: Our take is that the SAFE Act will not become law this year. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while a strong proponent of hemp, has not yet signaled a willingness to take up the marijuana—hemp's 'illicit cousin,' as McConnell calls it—reform measure in the Senate."
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
© 2024 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 AllStock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
8 minute read'A World of Credit': Ex-FTX Executive Gary Wang Sentenced to Time Served Following Cooperation
Inside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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