By Evan R. Park

Delaware continues to reinforce its position as a national leader in financial services and corporate innovation. In a recent meeting with the Governor’s office, the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce was briefed on a forward-looking package of legislation aimed at modernizing the state’s banking framework and keeping it competitive in a rapidly evolving financial landscape.

This week, Senator Spiros Mantzavinos introduced two key pieces of that package: Senate Bill 16 and Senate Bill 19.

These bills represent early steps in a broader effort to update Delaware’s banking laws—an initiative focused on supporting innovation, improving regulatory clarity, and attracting continued investment in the state’s financial sector. The State Chamber is currently monitoring both of these bills. 

For Delaware’s business community, particularly those in financial services, fintech, and corporate governance, these developments are worth watching. Modernized banking laws can create new opportunities for growth, improve operational efficiency, and strengthen Delaware’s position as a hub for financial activity.

Senate Bill 16 — Delaware Banking Modernization Act
This bill focuses on updating Delaware’s existing banking structure to reflect how the industry actually operates today.

What it does:

• Recognizes digital assets: Brings things like cryptocurrency into the fold for banking and fiduciary activities, giving institutions clearer footing to operate in this space.
• Adds flexibility for governance: Allows banks and trust companies to adjust their structures more easily as business and regulatory needs change.
• Makes it easier for out-of-state banks to come to Delaware: Lowers some of the barriers for institutions looking to relocate or expand here.
• Expands the authority of the State Bank Commissioner: Gives regulators more tools to oversee and respond to changes in the industry.
• Encourages more competition in the trust space: Removes certain restrictions, opening the door for more players and, ideally, better services.

​
Why it matters:

• Creates more room for innovation, especially in fintech
• Could bring new businesses and jobs into Delaware
• More competition could lead to better options and pricing

At its core, this bill is about keeping Delaware aligned with where banking is going, not where it’s been.

Senate Bill 19 — Payment Stablecoin Act
This bill shifts the focus to digital assets, specifically stablecoins. It would create a clear regulatory framework for companies issuing stablecoins or offering digital asset services in Delaware.

What it does:

• Sets clear rules for operating: Establishes licensing requirements, capital standards, and reserve expectations.
• Builds trust in the market: Requires safeguards like anti-money laundering protocols and data protections.
• Supports broader adoption: A defined framework can make businesses and consumers more comfortable using stablecoins.
• Aligns with broader regulatory trends: Helps Delaware companies operate across state and federal lines more easily.

Why it matters:

• Gives companies clarity instead of guesswork
• Positions Delaware as a serious player in digital assets
• Creates opportunity but also new compliance expectations

These bills point to where things are headed. Delaware is continuing to evolve its approach, not just maintain the status quo. For businesses, this is something to keep an eye on. The outcome could have a real impact on how financial services operate in the state. As always, please email me at [email protected] if you have any questions. 

By Evan R. Park

As Delaware policymakers consider House Bill 315, introduced by Rep. Kim Williams, banks and payment networks are raising concerns about unintended consequences. While the bill aims to reduce costs for some businesses, the industry warns it could create broader challenges across the payments system that ultimately impact merchants and consumers.

What the Bill Would Do
House Bill 315 would prohibit the collection of interchange fees on the gratuity portion of credit and debit card transactions. Banks and card networks emphasize that interchange fees are a foundational component of the electronic payments system, supporting fraud prevention, cybersecurity, transaction processing, and consumer protections.

Full-service restaurant wait staff often earn a base wage of just $2.23 per hour, with most of their income coming from tips. Currently, when customers pay with credit cards, servers receive their full tip, while restaurants pay roughly 2% in processing fees on the total transaction. This bill would eliminate that fee on the gratuity portion, amounting to a few cents of savings per transaction. 

It’s also worth noting that many restaurants already account for payment processing fees when they price their menus. The cost of a meal reflects everything it takes to run the business — not just the ingredients, but wages, rent, utilities, and credit card fees. Those expenses are already built in.
​
Key Concerns with the Legislation
From the banking industry’s perspective, carving out a specific portion of a transaction (such as tips) introduces operational and structural challenges:

• System Limitations: Today’s payment systems process transactions as a single total, not itemized components. Separating out tips for fee purposes would require system upgrades, adding cost and complexity.
• Compliance Burden: The bill allows for retroactive reporting (up to 180 days) and refunds, which could create additional compliance and operational challenges for financial institutions and processors.
• Pricing Shifts: Limiting interchange fees on one portion of a transaction could lead to adjustments elsewhere in the system, potentially increasing costs in less visible ways.

Broader Economic Implications
Banks also note that interchange fees help fund benefits that consumers and businesses rely on, including fraud protection, rewards programs, and secure transaction infrastructure. Limiting these fees could have ripple effects, including: 

• Reduced incentives for card issuers to offer rewards or low-cost banking services.
• Potential tightening of credit availability, particularly for small businesses and consumers with limited credit histories.
• Increased costs in other areas of payment processing that could offset any anticipated savings.

While some merchants, particularly in the restaurant and hospitality sectors, may see modest savings, banks argue those benefits may be uneven and offset by new costs, including potential point-of-sale system updates. 

Current Status
House Bill 315 was released from the House Economic Development, Banking, Insurance and Commerce committee

The Ongoing Conversation
The Delaware State Chamber continues to monitor the bill and gather input from stakeholders and our members. The banking sector is encouraging a collaborative approach to ensure any policy changes are thoughtful and balanced.

As the conversation continues, input from Delaware’s business community will be key to shaping outcomes that support both economic growth and financial stability. Reach out to me at [email protected] if you have any feedback. 

By Evan R. Park

Tuesday, March 10th marked the General Assembly's return to Legislative Hall after the Joint Finance Committee break, and lawmakers were eager to introduce and begin working on several pieces of legislation that will impact Delaware businesses.

Senate Activity

Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) – Primary Care Insurance Reform
Introduced by Sen. Bryan Townsend, Senate Bill 1 focuses on primary care insurance coverage and healthcare delivery. Supporters argue that SB 1 aims to lower healthcare costs, expand access to primary care, and improve patient outcomes statewide. Opponents, however, contend that the bill reintroduces regulatory language that was previously removed from House Bill 350 during the 152nd General Assembly. Critics believe the proposal could create new and potentially burdensome regulatory requirements.

SB 1 has been assigned to the Senate Health and Social Services Committee, where it will receive further review. We are closely monitoring its progress to assess potential impacts on employer-sponsored healthcare coverage and regulatory compliance.

Senate Bill 205 (SB 205) – Oversight of Large Energy Users
Also drawing significant attention is Senate Bill 205, sponsored by Sen. Stephanie Hansen and released from the Senate Environment and Energy Committee on March 11.

The bill would require any company seeking to begin or expand operations that would use 100 megawatts (MW) of electricity or more to first obtain a Certificate to Operate (COP) from the Delaware Public Service Commission. The proposal is designed to increase regulatory oversight of large-scale energy users, particularly data center developments that have been proposed in Delaware.

The Delaware State Chamber opposes SB 205 due to concerns that the additional regulatory hurdle could discourage large-scale investment and slow economic development opportunities in the state. The bill’s next step is consideration by the full Senate.

House Activity

House Bill 306 (HB 306)  – AI Disclosure Requirements
In the House of Representatives, Rep. Cyndie Romer introduced House Bill 306 addressing the use of artificial intelligence in consumer interactions.

The bill would make it unlawful for a business to engage in a commercial transaction with a consumer through computer technology under circumstances where a reasonable person would believe they are interacting with a human (unless the consumer is notified that the communication is with a computer.) While many stakeholders acknowledge the need for safeguards in the rapidly evolving AI landscape, the Delaware State Chamber has expressed concerns about provisions in the bill that create a private right of action, allowing lawsuits even when no harm or damages have occurred.

We continue to engage with Rep. Romer on the private right of action language, but she is steadfast in her belief that it needs to remain in the bill. We hope that she will include language creating a safe harbor for entities who meet disclosure requirements, as well as right-to-cure language. HB 306 is currently awaiting scheduling for consideration by the full House.

House Bill 310 (HB 310) – Changes to Business Tax Credit Eligibility
Rep. Debra Heffernan has introduced House Bill 310, which would exclude facilities using 30 megawatts or more of electricity from qualifying for certain state tax credits or license fee reductions tied to job creation and capital investment. As written, the bill would impact large energy-use projects, including potential data center developments.

The Delaware State Chamber is currently monitoring HB 310. Some opponents of the bill have suggested an amendment to increase the threshold to 100 MW, aligning it with the standard proposed in SB 205 (mentioned above).

This legislation, if unchanged, could reduce Delaware’s competitiveness in attracting major investment projects. HB 310 has been assigned to the House Revenue & Finance Committee.  

House Bill 315 (HB 315) – Credit Card Fees on Tips
Finally, Rep. Kim Williams introduced House Bill 315 (HB 315), which would prohibit payment card networks from charging transaction fees on tips included in credit card payments.

The proposal has sparked debate among industries. The Delaware Restaurant Association strongly supports the measure, arguing it ensures tipped employees receive the full value of gratuities. Meanwhile, the Delaware Bankers Association and the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill, citing concerns about its potential impact on the banking industry and broader financial systems.

HB 315 has been released from the House Economic Development Committee and is awaiting scheduling for a vote in the House of Representatives. Discussions with the bill’s sponsors are ongoing as stakeholders explore possible amendments.

The Delaware State Chamber will continue engaging with policymakers to ensure the perspectives of our member businesses are represented as these bills move through the legislative process. Please reach out to me at [email protected] if you have any feedback on these bills or other policy-related concerns. 

Contributed by Offit Kurman

On February 20, 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The decision invalidates the reciprocal tariffs and trafficking/immigration tariffs imposed in 2025 under IEEPA and confirms that the power to impose tariffs lies with Congress. The Court did not prescribe a refund mechanism; that responsibility now falls to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Within hours of the decision, the Administration imposed a new 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (now 15%), effective February 24, 2026, and limited to 150 days (absent congressional action).
​
This creates two immediate opportunities:

1. Refund claims for prior IEEPA tariffs (available to domestic and foreign companies)
2. Advisory and planning work related to new Section 122 tariffs and potential replacement regimes (Section 232/301)

Documents You Should Be Gathering:

• Entry summaries (CF 7501)
• Duty payment records
• Liquidation dates
• PSC filings
• Contracts allocating tariff responsibility
• ACE and ACH refund account status
• SKU lists affected by Section 122

Bottom Line:
IEEPA refunds are potentially significant. Deadlines are running. Section 122 tariffs create immediate planning needs.

If you import goods, manufacture overseas, distribute foreign products, or rely on cross-border supply chains, connect with Offit Kurman for consultation. Please direct any inquiries to G. Kevin Fasic at [email protected]. 

This post originally was posted on Offit Kurman's blog, at ​Tariff Litigation Updates: IEEPA Refund Claims & Section 122 Tariffs.