Delaware Supreme Court Nixes $7.3M Judgment Against Overstock
The state Supreme Court found the company violated the Delaware False Claims and Reporting Act as written now, but Overstock did not violate the law as written in 2013 when the violations in question actually occurred.
June 25, 2020 at 05:23 PM
2 minute read
The Delaware Supreme Court threw out a nearly $7.3 million Superior Court judgment against Overstock.com over unclaimed gift card debt.
The court determined Overstock's failure to properly file escheat between 2010 and 2013 was not proven at trial to be a violation of the Delaware False Claims and Reporting Act because the company's proven actions violate the state's current law, and not the law in place prior to 2013.
Under Delaware law, abandoned property, including unused gift card balances, must be given or paid to the state escheator each year along with reports on that property.
According to the Supreme Court's reversal, Overstock contracted with CardFact Ltd., a company based in Ohio, where gift cards aren't subject to escheat. CardFact handled Overstock's gift card program, making CardFact liable for any unused gift card debt. In 2009, CardFact was sold to Card Compliant, which took over management of the program.
At that time, plaintiff William Sean French worked for Card Compliant. In 2011, he left the company for a job with Kelmar Associates, with which the state of Delaware contracts to handle unclaimed property audits. French brought the action against Overstock in 2013, and Delaware intervened, eventually filing an amended complaint that alleged Overstock had "knowingly made, used or caused to be made or used, false statements to conceal, avoid or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money to the government."
At trial, the Superior Court instructed the jury that failing to make the required escheat reports was the equivalent of actively making a false statement. The Supreme Court agreed that under the current version of DFCRA, that would be true. However, language broadening that criteria to include knowingly avoiding an obligation to pay or give property to the government was not added to the Delaware statute until 2013, and parties agreed that version of the law wasn't applicable to the period involved in the Overstock case.
In July 2019, a jury concluded at trial that Overstock violated the DFCRA by not filing required escheat reports between 2010 and 2013. Overstock was ordered to pay about $7.27 million in treble damages for the violations, as well as $22,000 in civil penalties.
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 AllFTX Estate Seeks to Recoup $1.76B From Binance, Plus Exec 'Piggy Bank' Payouts
3 minute readWells Fargo Seeks Declaratory Judgment Against 'YGC' Debt Collection Copyright Claim
4 minute readAntitrust Lawsuit Alleges Scheme to Block Digital-Wallet Competitors, Monopolize Cash Access at US Casinos
Securities Litigation Cases Continued to Decline Nationally in 2023, Report Finds
Trending Stories
- 1Fulton Judge Weighs Whether to Order Fani Willis to Comply With Lawmakers' Subpoenas Over Trump Case
- 2Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
- 3Judge Rises to Tifton Superior Court Bench
- 4'It's Like They Lynched You:' Law Professor's Discrimination Claim Reaches High Court
- 5New Teeth for Anti-SLAPP Statute? Absolute Immunity for Union Grievance Proceedings
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