Delaware Combats Claims of Contractor Bias in Unclaimed Property Challenge
A private sector firm lacks critical decision-making authority in audits that it conducts on behalf of Delaware, officials said Thursday as they wrapped up briefing in a renewed effort to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the state's system for collecting unclaimed property.
October 15, 2017 at 05:36 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
A private sector firm lacks critical decision-making authority in audits that it conducts on behalf of Delaware, officials said Thursday as they wrapped up briefing in a renewed effort to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the state's system for collecting unclaimed property.
Attorneys for Delaware's finance secretary said that Kelmar Associates, a Boston-based independent auditor, only conducted the reviews according to Delaware statute and under the guidance of the state escheator, who ultimately decides whether companies are complying with Delaware unclaimed property laws.
The argument, outlined in a 15-page filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, aimed to undercut claims from Plains All American Pipeline that Kelmar's role in the process had violated its due process rights by requiring the company to submit its dispute to a self-interested party.
“Delaware's escheats law could not be more clear: It is the state and not Kelmar that makes a determination of unclaimed property liability, it is the state and not Kelmar that imposes an unclaimed property liability on a holder, and Delaware courts have jurisdiction to review the state's determination,” Caroline Lee Cross, an attorney for the Delaware Department of Justice's Finance Department wrote in the state's reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss the suit.
A federal appeals court in August upheld the dismissal of the bulk of Plains' claims, finding they were too speculative to support a lawsuit. The panel, however, allowed Plains to proceed on its as-applied due process claim and remanded the issue for another round of briefing.
Plains' attorneys argued that Kelmar, which contracts with the state on a contingency fee basis, has a direct financial interest in the unclaimed property audits because its compensation is tied to the amount of money it finds companies owe to Delaware.
And as a biased adjudicator, the attorneys said, the firm improperly makes key determinations that should be left to a neutral arbitrator.
“Among other things, Kelmar collects, reviews and weighs evidence; makes factual findings; applies the law to those facts; and reaches a conclusion as to whether the examinee owes money to the state of Delaware,” Plains' Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones attorneys said. “As such, Plains plausibly stated a claim that Kelmar's role implicates due process protections.”
State attorneys responded that all “adjudicative functions” are left to the state, and Kelmar's role is limited to that of a nonjudicial examiner. Under Delaware law, they said, only the state has the power to decide which companies are audited and the scope of documents those firms have to produce in a dispute.
The state must also sign off on Kelmar's method of estimation prior to an examination, and targeted firms maintain the ability to appeal adverse findings to the Delaware Court of Chancery, the attorneys said.
“Thus, Plains cannot succeed on its pending due process claim as a matter of law,” Cross wrote. “Additionally, allowing Plains to amend its complaint will not cure the defect in Plains' claim since Delaware's escheats law and related escheats regulations prevent by their very terms the contract examiner from acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.”
It was not clear on Friday whether U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews would hear oral argument on the motion.
Plains' lawsuit is one of several high-profile cases to challenge Delaware's system for collecting unclaimed property, which accounts for the state's third-largest source of revenue. The practice has come under attack in Delaware, since a 2016 district court ruling in the case Temple-Inland v. Cook blasted Delaware's escheat laws for allowing overly aggressive audits.
Delaware has since amended its statute to address constitutional concerns, and lawmakers have said that additional changes may be needed in the future.
The state defendants are represented by Cross, Jennifer R. Noel and Edward K. Black of the DOJ.
Kelmar is represented by Stephen W. Kidder and Ryan P. McManus of Hemenway & Barnes and Marc J. Phillips of Manion Gaynor & Manning. Plains is represented by Phillip B. Dye Jr., Deborah C. Milner, Jeremy C. Marwell and Christian Sheehan of Vinson & Elkins and James E. O'Neill, Colin R. Robinson and Bradford J. Sandler of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones.
The case is captioned Plains All American Pipeline v. Geisenberger.
Tom McParland can be contacted at 215-557-2485 or at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @TMcParlandTLI.
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 AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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