New Delaware Unclaimed Property Audit Regs Trigger Non-Compliance Concerns
Delaware's much-anticipated unclaimed property audit regulations went into effect on October 11 and now the state is identifying some holders as…
November 10, 2017 at 03:44 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Delaware's much-anticipated unclaimed property audit regulations went into effect on October 11 and now the state is identifying some holders as “likely being out of compliance” with the new law and requesting they enroll in the voluntary disclosure agreement (VDA) program.
Matt Hedstrom, partner, and Michael Giovannini, senior associate, at Alston & Bird, recently sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss the implications of the audit.
“Holders must weigh options and prepare for VDA conversion, if that is their selected option,” said Hedstrom, a partner in Alston & Bird's State & Local Tax Group. “Holders that are not currently under audit should carefully monitor correspondence from the Secretary of State's office requesting enrollment in the VDA program to avoid losing the ability to opt into a VDA and having to deal with an audit.”
According to Giovannini, the deadline for holders under audit to convert their audits into Department of State-administered VDAs or to opt into the new expedited audit program is now approaching. Alston & Bird has learned that the final date for making this decision is officially December 11th.
The regulations require application of a 30-day void rule rather than a 90-day void rule for determining whether uncashed checks are included in the population of potential unclaimed property. According to Hedstrom, this means that on audit, a check that was voided by the holder 30 days or more after the date of issuance would be considered potentially escheatable and thus required to be researched and remediated. Delaware has historically applied this standard on audit, which is much less favorable than the 90-day rule applied in a VDA context.
“Utilizing the 30-day rule will likely result in a much higher population of checks to be remediated, and any unremediated check would factor into the 'error ratio' for estimation purposes,” he explained.
The more concerning thing is that the regulations require checks issued to payees in all jurisdictions to be includable in the population of potential unclaimed property, rather than just checks issued to Delaware (or unknown) payees, per Giovannini. There is also no exclusion for checks that were exempt from being considered unclaimed property in another state or that were in fact escheated to another state.
Today, the regulations indicate that the Department of Finance is required to publish an “Intent to Expedite Completion of Examination,” which will outline the expectations of the holder in this regard. The department has published this form, though unfortunately it does not provide many details beyond what are outlined in the statute.
“The form requires the holder to agree that the hold notice contained in the original audit authorization letter remains in effect during the expedited audit,” said Giovannini. “It also indicates that a Schedule A will spell out the specific details regarding the holder's response requirements. However, no sample Schedule A is provided. Holders are looking for additional guidance around the process, timing, nature of the review, etc.”
Delaware attempts to arrive at an aggregated, unapportioned estimate of liability by considering all items of unclaimed property during the base years, not just those that are due and payable to the state of Delaware, according to Hedstrom. This would include all checks owed to payees in states other than Delaware, for example.
So, what are the steps required to convert an audit to a VDA by December 11?
“Luckily, this is as simple as completing, executing, and submitting the form NOI CONV, which is available at the Delaware VDA website,” said Giovannini. “The form requires only basic information to be included, such as when the audit was initiated and the relevant holder contact information. The form may also be emailed and need not be physically mailed.”
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more.
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 AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
FTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Discover Hires Interim Legal Chief as $35B Sale to Capital One Faces New Hurdles
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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