SB 378 (2000): relative to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Cite this page

Granite Record indexes the General Court’s record; it is not that record. Where a citation allows only one source, cite the General Court — every page here links to what it is drawn from. The date below is the day the page was read.

MLA
“SB 378 (2000): relative to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” Granite Record, https://graniterecord.org/bill/2000/sb378. Accessed 24 Oct. 2026.
APA
Granite Record. (n.d.). SB 378 (2000): relative to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Retrieved 24 Oct. 2026, from https://graniterecord.org/bill/2000/sb378
Chicago
Granite Record. “SB 378 (2000): relative to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” Accessed 24 Oct. 2026. https://graniterecord.org/bill/2000/sb378.
BibTeX
@misc{bill-2000-sb378, title = {SB 378 (2000): relative to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.}, howpublished = {Granite Record}, url = {https://graniterecord.org/bill/2000/sb378}, note = {Accessed 24 Oct. 2026} }

SB 378 (2000)

relative to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

  • Status: Signed into law
  • Term: 1999-2000
  • House committee: Commerce
  • Senate committee: Executive Departments and Administration
  • Subject: Banking and Finance
  • Chapter law: 262

The Story

It was introduced on January 5, 2000 and referred to the Senate Executive Departments and Administration committee. The committee held a public hearing on February 22, 2000. The committee recommended that the Senate pass it. On March 9, 2000 the Senate voted to pass it on a voice vote and ordered it to a third reading. It crossed to the House on March 9, 2000 and was referred to the House Commerce committee. The committee held a public hearing on April 6, 2000. The committee held work sessions on April 27, 2000 and May 3, 2000. The majority of the committee recommended that the House pass it with changes unanimously, 17–0, and the report was placed on the consent calendar. On May 17, 2000 the House voted to pass it with changes. On May 18, 2000 the Senate adopted “Sen. Cohen Concur with House Amendment” on a voice vote. The bill was enrolled on May 31, 2000 — the final check of the text before it goes to the governor. The governor signed it on June 12, 2000, making it Chapter 262 of the session laws. It took effect on June 12, 2000.

Sponsors

Hearings and Sessions

  • February 22, 2000, 1:00 PM: hearing, Senate Executive Departments and Administration, LOB 101
  • April 6, 2000, 1:45 PM: hearing, House Commerce, RM302,LOB
  • April 27, 2000, 2:00 PM: subcommittee work session, House Commerce, RM302,LOB
  • May 3, 2000, 2:00 PM: subcommittee work session, House Commerce, RM302,LOB

Votes

  • March 9, 2000, Senate: Ought to Pass — voice vote, passed
  • May 18, 2000, Senate: Sen. Cohen Concur with House Amendment — voice vote, passed

The Docket

  • January 5, 2000: Introduced and Ref. to Executive Departments and Administration; SJ Convening Day, Pg.11
  • January 25, 2000: Hearing, Jan. 25, 1:00 p.m., Room 101, LOB; SC1, Pg.5
  • February 22, 2000: Feb.22,Room 101,LOB,1:00 p.m
  • March 6, 2000: Committee Report Ought to Pass; SC15, Pg.3
  • March 9, 2000: Ought to Pass, MA, VV; OT3rdg, MA, VV
  • March 9, 2000: Introduced and ref to Commerce; HJ22, p660
  • March 15, 2000: Copy to Chairman on 3/15/2000
  • April 6, 2000: Hearing Apr 6 1:45 RM302,LOB
  • April 21, 2000: (Subcom: Rep T Reardon)
  • April 27, 2000: Subcom Work Session Apr 27 2:00 RM302,LOB
  • May 3, 2000: Subcom Work Session May 3 2:00 RM302,LOB
  • May 9, 2000: Maj Report OTP/AM for May 17 (vote 17-0;CC)
  • May 9, 2000: Prop Comm Am{4369}; HC40, p1256-1259
  • May 17, 2000: Passed with Am; Reps Chandler & Burling Susp Rules for 3rd reading, MA 2/3VV; HJ45, p1368-1372+1394
  • May 18, 2000: Sen. Cohen Concur with House Amendment{4369}; MA, VV
  • May 31, 2000: Enrolled Bill, Adopted
  • May 31, 2000: Enrolled; HJ48, p1548
  • June 12, 2000: Signed by the Governor on 6/12/2000 Eff: 6/12/2000* Chap: 0262
  • June 12, 2000: *multiple effective dates, See Chapter

Laws It Would Change

From the General Court