Join now!   |   Subscribe   |   Pay an Invoice   |   Sign In
Unclaimed Property Focus
Blog Home All Blogs
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FOCUS is a blog written by and for UPPO members, featuring diverse perspectives and insights from unclaimed property practitioners across the U.S. and Canada. We welcome your submissions to Unclaimed Property Focus. Please contact Tim Dressen via tim@uppo.org with any questions about submitting a blog post for consideration and refer to our editorial guidelines when writing your blog post. Disclaimer: Information and/or comments to this blog is not intended as a substitute for legal advice on compliance or reporting requirements.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: Unclaimed Property  Compliance  Education  UPPO  Audits  Delaware  Due Diligence  litigation  Advocacy  Reform  Members  ULC  fall reporting  legislation  RUUPA  UPPO Annual Conference  UP101  Gift Cards  Reporting  UP Laws  Uniform Law Commission  california  Holders Seminar  UPPO Asks  VDAs  Canada  securities  Service Providers  Uniform Unclaimed Property Act  VDA 

ERISA Advisory Council Plans Review of Unclaimed Property Practices

Posted By Administration, Thursday, June 13, 2019

The Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans recently announced it will study permissive transfers of uncashed checks from ERISA plans to state unclaimed property funds. Also known as the ERISA Advisory Council, the group’s purpose is to provide recommendations to the Department of Labor on matters related to Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

 

Many employee benefit plans have been established under ERISA. A common position for companies to take is that because federal law dictates how benefit plans should be administered under ERISA, states are preempted from claiming the money associated with those plans. 

 

Announcing its plans to study the issue, the advisory council wrote, “The department has consistently applied a broad view of ERISA preemption of state unclaimed property and escheat laws. However, that guidance does not limit the extent to which a plan representative may voluntarily transfer uncashed checks to a state unclaimed property fund. The 2019 Council’s objective is to review the treatment and procedures utilized by state unclaimed property funds, which may vary significantly between states.”

 

The council does not plan to address what steps are appropriate to locate missing plan participants. Rather, it intends to explore whether circumstances exist in which voluntary transfers of uncashed distribution checks to a state unclaimed property fund advances the Department of Labor’s goal of reuniting missing participants with their retirement savings. 

 

The ERISA Advisory Council is scheduled to take up this issue during its next meeting, scheduled for June 25-27, 2019. The council will accept public comments through June 18. 

 

 

 

 

Tags:  employee benefits  ERISA  retirement accounts 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

UPPO Advocacy Update: June 2019

Posted By Administration, Thursday, June 6, 2019
Updated: Thursday, June 6, 2019

To help members remain aware of UPPO’s advocacy activities, the Unclaimed Property Focus blog presents the recurring Advocacy Update when legislatures are active or significant advocacy activity has occurred. Following are recent activities and trends from UPPO’s Government Relations and Advocacy Committee (GRAC).

 

Most state legislatures have recessed or adjourned for the year, so the number of active unclaimed property bills has decreased. States are likely to continue introducing new RUUPA-inspired bills when legislatures reconvene next year. 

 

As mentioned in recent advocacy updates, many such bills include provisions related to contingency auditors, earlier liquidation of securities and subpoena rights. 

 

The expansion of state subpoena power is especially concerning. Providing appropriate data to states as part of the unclaimed property reporting process is essential. However, some data requests and subpoenas are overly broad, presenting privacy concerns for consumers and the holders with which they do business. In some cases, data turned over to states that should be protected may be made public if the state doesn’t exclude private information from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses. UPPO will continue to oppose such legislation and encourages holders to challenge overly broad information requests and subpoenas.

 

During the legislative recess, GRAC and the Holders Coalition will continue to work on federal issues, including the Internal Revenue Service’s position on individual retirement account escheatment, the tax treatment of unclaimed 401(k) accounts highlighted by the recent GAO report, and the SECURE Act. GRAC also continues its work promoting introduction of a voluntary disclosure program in California

 

As more and more legislatures and regulatory agencies take on issues affecting unclaimed property compliance, advocacy has become an increasingly important role for UPPO.

Please take a few minutes to complete our 
Government Relations and Advocacy Survey to help us build our grassroots network. Responses will give us the ability to mobilize UPPO members when we are faced with legislative and regulatory challenges and opportunities.

 

 

Tags:  California  GAO  IRS  retirement accounts  SECURE Act  subpoena 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Litigation Update: Court Dismisses $14.5 Billion Case Against Life Insurers

Posted By Administration, Thursday, May 30, 2019

On April 3, 2019, New York Supreme Court Justice Andrea Masley granted a motion to dismiss by defendant life insurers in Total Asset Recovery Services LLC v. Met Life Inc., a whistleblower (qui tam) case brought by audit firm Total Asset Recovery Services on behalf of the state of New York. 

 

Filed in 2010 and amended by TARS in 2011 and 2017 under the New York False Claims Act, the case alleged that nearly a dozen life insurance companies failed to escheat to the state unclaimed funds held under mature life insurance policies. The plaintiff alleged more than $14.5 billion in damages.

 

TARS based its claim, in part, on the defendant life insurers’ alleged failure to use the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File to locate beneficiaries of deceased insureds and to report and escheat to the state funds that had not been claimed by the beneficiaries. However, the court pointed out in its ruling that insurance companies had no obligation to search the DMF when the case brought in 2010. New York did not require such searches until April 2012. 

 

“TARS’ assertion that death alone, not proof of death triggers the three-year dormancy period of escheatment requirement… lacks merit. The pleadings do not allege that any of the defendants received notice and proof of death of any insureds,” the court wrote. 

 

The court also denied a request to amend its pleading, saying it had already done so twice and “any further amendment would be futile.” 

 

Created and maintained by the Social Security Administration, the Death Master File has been a controversial tool. Government agencies and private businesses rely on the DMF to verify the death of U.S. citizens, but questions about its accuracy and, thus, reliability continue to make it a contentious issue among insurers, consumers, government agencies and politicians. Life insurers’ use of the DMF has been a source of debate, scrutiny, litigation and regulation in recent years.

Tags:  Death Master File  DMF  qui tam  whistleblower 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

The State of Online Reporting

Posted By Administration, Thursday, May 23, 2019

Many of the transactions we complete on any given day occur online. Whether we’re banking, shopping or ordering pizza, online options have increasingly become the default method of getting things done. This is also true in the world of unclaimed property reporting, where more states are accepting and, in many cases, requiring holders to submit their reports online.

 

Currently, 29 U.S. jurisdictions require online reporting. In most cases, these states will not accept paper or non-online electronic formats (CD, DVD, USB, diskette, email): Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. 

 

Massachusetts, Minnesota and Washington require negative reports to be filed online, but accept CDs for positive filings. New Hampshire requires reports of 20 or more records to be filed online. Oklahoma requires online reporting for 15 or more properties but accepts either reports online or via CD for fewer than 15 properties. Puerto Rico’s online filing requirement applies only to holders in the insurance industry. Michigan and the District of Columbia still accept CDs but strongly recommend online filing and are in the process of moving to an online-only requirement. 

 

Almost all U.S. jurisdictions (43) have online reporting capabilities even if they still allow other methods. However, 11 jurisdictions do not currently accept online reports: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, New Mexico, North Carolina, Vermont and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

 

As recently as five years ago, only 10 jurisdictions required online reporting. It’s likely that all states will soon have online report acceptance capabilities and that more of them will accept online reports exclusively as this trend continues. 

 

For detailed information about reporting deadlines, dormancy periods, due diligence requirements, exemptions and deductions, electronic filing and much more, UPPO members can refer to the Jurisdiction Resource Guide

 

Tags:  electronic reporting  online reporting 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Litigation Update: Chancery Court Sides with Univar, Takes Issue with Delaware

Posted By Administration, Thursday, May 16, 2019

State of Delaware, Dept. of Finance v. Univar, Inc., C.A.

On Dec. 3, 2018, Univar Inc. filed a lawsuit against Delaware Department of Finance officials in a Delaware District Court, alleging that several aspects of an unclaimed property audit initiated by third-party auditor Kelmar in 2015 on Delaware’s behalf are unconstitutional.

According to Univar’s complaint, for more than two years Delaware rejected or ignored objections it had made to document requests from Kelmar. In December 2018, Delaware issued a subpoena for the records Kelmar had previously requested. Univar filed suit, raising constitutional issues regarding:

  • Delaware’s retroactive application of amendments to the Delaware Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Law.
  • The state’s estimation methodology.
  • The state’s use of a third-party auditor that simultaneously represents other states in a multi-state audit.
  • The state’s contingent-fee arrangement with its third-party auditor.
On Dec. 7, 2018, Delaware responded to Univar’s lawsuit by filing its own lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court, seeking to force Univar to comply with its subpoena. Univar filed a motion asking the court to put Delaware’s lawsuit on hold until the constitutional issues at play in its original lawsuit were resolved.

Following a hearing on April 8, 2019, the Chancery Court judge granted Univar’s request. Delaware responded by requesting an interlocutory appeal – an accelerated appeal of the ruling, which can be granted in extraordinary circumstances. On May 6, 2019, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III denied the request and took exception with Delaware’s actions.

“The State continues to press its strategy of having two courts litigate the same constitutional challenges to the same Delaware statutes at the same time. The inefficiencies of this approach are apparently lost on the State. They are not lost on the Court,” Slights wrote in his decision.

UPPO will continue to monitor and report on the Univar case as noteworthy developments occur.

Tags:  audits  Delaware  estimation  litigation  Univar 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 3 of 67
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  >   >>   >| 
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal