12.07.2015 Views

CA, Inc.'s Answer and Counterclaim - Reed Smith

CA, Inc.'s Answer and Counterclaim - Reed Smith

CA, Inc.'s Answer and Counterclaim - Reed Smith

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

From the state tax library of <strong>Reed</strong> <strong>Smith</strong> LLPwww.reedsmith.com/DEtaxfor other related documents, please email ksollie@reedsmith.comState was obligated to accept payments for the reporting period of 1991 to 2001, <strong>and</strong> not seekamounts allegedly due prior to 1991.26. The VDA Notice of Intent further obligated the State to memorialize its promisesto <strong>CA</strong> by executing a st<strong>and</strong>ard VDA Agreement.27. In particular, pursuant to the st<strong>and</strong>ard VDA Agreement contemplated by the VDANotice of Intent, the State agreed expressly to release <strong>CA</strong> "from all claims, dem<strong>and</strong>s, interest,penalties, actions or causes of actions" that the State may have for the reporting period of 1991 to2001. As well, the State agreed to release <strong>CA</strong> "from any further reporting requirements of theDelaware Ab<strong>and</strong>oned Property Law for the ab<strong>and</strong>oned or unclaimed property identified, paid<strong>and</strong> delivered pursuant to this agreement, for [1991 to 2001] . . ., <strong>and</strong> for all preceding reportingyears."28. Further, the State agreed to "maintain the confidentiality of informationvoluntarily disclosed [by <strong>CA</strong>] <strong>and</strong> disclose only such information as provided in Section 1141,Chapter 11 of Title 12 of Delaware Code, or as otherwise required by law."29. Based upon the State<strong>'s</strong> promulgated regulations regarding the VDA program, <strong>CA</strong>understood that, if it acted in good faith, the State would seek only those amounts of moneyproperly owed by <strong>CA</strong> to the State under the relevant escheatment laws. As <strong>CA</strong> has come tolearn, however, rather than operating in good faith to ascertain the amount of money actuallyowed, the State instead engaged in a bad faith <strong>and</strong> wholly inappropriate campaign of fabricatinginflated dem<strong>and</strong>s for the purpose of coercing <strong>CA</strong> to pay more than it rightfully owes the State.30. The State has failed to meet its obligations under the VDA, despite <strong>CA</strong>’s havingmet all of its obligations. Instead, <strong>and</strong> as set forth more fully herein, the State consistently hasasked <strong>CA</strong> to provide volumes of information that the State had no intention of reviewing, <strong>and</strong>- 42 –

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!