Synopsis
This Act clarifies various aspects of the State’s procedures to operate its unclaimed property program, including promoting and determining holder compliance, processing owner claims, and preventing fraudulent claims. Sections 1, 13, and 15 confirm current examination practice and address recent court decisions that, to determine a holder’s compliance, the State Escheator may request and review records to verify the completeness and accuracy of the holder’s records, even if such records may not identify property reportable to the State, and that the State may initiate an examination to determine compliance for any reason and is under no obligation to provide a detailed or specific reason or justification. Section 2 clarifies that the dormancy period for various types of bonds is 3 years, which confirms current practice to treat these property types similar to securities-related property. This section also clarifies and addresses recent changes made by the SECURE Act that impact the escheatment of Individual Retirement Accounts. This Section takes effect on August 1, 2021, for the next annual reporting period. Section 3 clarifies that holders whose business is described in 30 Del. C. § 2906 (“the business of operating a restaurant, snack bar, soda fountain, take-out food service, catering service, private eating or drinking club, or other eating establishment or service”) do not have to report and remit unredeemed gift card property that had an original issue amount of $5 or less. This Section further clarifies that no report is required from any holder for unredeemed gift cards having an aggregate face value of less than $5000 for the reporting period. Sections 4 and 13 clarify and confirm current practice that owner notification (“due diligence”) letters may be sent at any time during an examination at the holder’s initiative or at the direction of the State Escheator. Section 13 expressly allows the State to mail owner notification letters during an examination. Sections 5 and 24 clarify and confirm current practice that the State Escheator is only required to publish or provide upon request only last known address identifiers, which currently is considered city and state, rather than a property owner’s full address. Section 6 limits the scope of the State’s holder indemnification to property claimed by other jurisdictions and excludes penalties, as defined, imposed by other jurisdictions from the State’s indemnification obligations. Sections 7 and 14 clarify and confirm current practice by aligning the scope (included years and legal entities) of a Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (“VDA”) or a subsequent examination, which is to be determined as of the earlier of the following: the date the VDA invitation letter is delivered, the date a holder elects to enter the VDA program, or the date the notice of examination is delivered. Sections 8 and 9 clarify and confirm current practice related to the return of securities-related property to owners. Section 8 makes a technical correction to change the imprecise 18-month time limit to an exact time period of 558 days (31 days multiplied by 18 months), to allow owners the maximum amount of time under the law to file a claim to recover their securities or market value as of the date of the claim, rather than the liquidated cash value. Because an owner’s right may be significantly altered after the expiration of this time period, precise calculation of this time period to the owner’s benefit is necessary. The 558-day period is the current standard applied by the State Escheator to determine the return of securities or market value as of the date of the claim versus liquidated cash value, and codification of the 558-day period avoids additional software development costs. This Section also clarifies that claimants receive any dividends that the State received while it held the security. Sections 8 and 9 clarify tha