Jury Hits Overstock.com With $3M Verdict in Del. Unclaimed Property Case
A Delaware jury has returned a $3 million verdict in a whistleblower suit against Overstock.com, finding after just one hour of deliberation that the online retailer had avoided reporting abandoned gift card balances to state officials.
September 24, 2018 at 04:42 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
A Delaware jury has returned a $3 million verdict in a whistleblower suit against Overstock.com, finding after just one hour of deliberation that the online retailer had avoided reporting abandoned gift card balances to state officials.
The verdict, which followed a six-day trial, is likely to lead to an automatic trebling of damages, plus an award of attorney fees, bringing Overstock's potential liability to as much as $10 million in the four-and-a-half year-old case, an attorney for whistle blower William Sean French said on Monday.
In 2014, French, who had previously worked for Ohio-based CardFact, accused his former employer of creating shell companies and conspiring with retailers to evade its obligation report and return the funds to Delaware, which relies on unclaimed property for its third-largest source of revenue.
Attorneys from the Delaware Department of Justice quickly moved to intervene on behalf of the state, alleging that CardFact, now known as Card Compliant, had worked with retail companies to deprive the state of hundreds of millions of dollars in unclaimed gift card balances, in a “scheme” dating back to 2005.
In a 116-page complaint, the state alleged that CardFact and the retailers attempted to circumvent reporting requirements by forming shell companies in Ohio and Florida, where unredeemed gift card balances can't revert to state coffers. CardFact and the retailers would then issue gift cards or contractually assign the retailer's existing obligation to cardholding customers to the alleged shell companies and terminate the retailers' obligations, attorneys said.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims last year. In court documents, the companies said that the assignments to non-Delaware entities were valid because the retailers had no duty to pay the value of the gift cards under the state's unclaimed property laws. Their actions, they argued, were “objectively reasonable” because Delaware had issued no definitive guidance to the contrary.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Paul R. Wallace denied the motion, paving the way for trial this month.
Stuart M. Grant, who represented French along with a team of attorneys from the Wilmington plaintiffs' firm Grant & Eisenhofer, said CardFact settled the case along with about a dozen other retailers, which had been accused of engaging in the scheme. The exact terms of those settlements are confidential, but Grant said they had secured between $25 million and $30 million, collectively.
Overstock was the only defendant to go to trial in the civil action. Argument wrapped up around 1 p.m. Sept. 20, and a panel of 12 jurors returned their verdict shortly after 2 p.m. that same day, Grant said.
“We are not surprised that the jurors had no trouble seeing through the scam that Overstock tried to pull,” Grant said in a statement last week announcing the verdict. “This case was simple and straightforward. Overstock had a legal obligation to report and turn over almost $3 million dollars from unused gift cards to the state. The company knew the law and instead of following it, they intentionally tried to evade their obligation.”
According to Grant, the case only involved actions Overstock had taken between 2005 and 2007. However, the company is also accused of similar violations that occurred between 2008 and 2012.
It would be up to the state to decide how to proceed with those allegations, Grant said. Officials could decide to either file another lawsuit or initiate an audit to recover any disputed funds. But if the company were to resist an audit, that would lay the groundwork for a separate lawsuit, he said.
Attorneys for Overstock were not immediately available to comment on Monday.
Grant & Eisenhofer attorneys Mary S. Thomas, the firm's director, and associate Laina M. Herbert also represented French in the case, captioned Delaware v. Card Compliant.
Deputy Attorneys General Thomas E. Brown, Edward K. Black and Stephen G. MacDonald of the Delaware DOJ represented the state.
David S. Eagle and Michael W. Yurkewicz of Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg and Martin I. Eisenstein, David Swetman-Burland and Stacy O. Stitham of Brann & Isaacson represented Overstock.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
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