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

From the state tax library of Reed Smith LLPwww.reedsmith.com/DEtaxfor other related documents, please email ksollie@reedsmith.com268. These actual controversies present a need for a declaration by the Court relative tothe constitutionality of 29 Del. C. § 10161 and Title 12, Chapter 11 of the Delaware Code.269. The resolution of these disputes by the entry of judgment declaring the rights ofthe parties is necessary and appropriate under the existing facts and circumstances.270. The judgment sought will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling theconstitutionality of 29 Del. C. § 10161 and Title 12, Chapter 11 of the Delaware Code.271. The judgment sought does not involve an advisory opinion as to a legal injurybased on hypothetical facts.272. The judgment will afford CA relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, andcontroversy giving rise to this controversy.273. The State has waived any claim of sovereign immunity with respect to CA'sconstitutional claim because unconstitutional takings of property represent self-executingwaivers of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., State v. 0.24148, 0.23831 and 0.12277 Acres of Land,171 A.2d 228, 231 (Del. 1961).274. CA requests that the Court declare 29 Del. C. § 10161 and Title 12, Chapter 11 ofthe Delaware Code unconstitutional insofar as those statutes allow the State to deprive CA ofproperty without due process of law.COUNT IX(Injunctive Relief – Unconstitutionality of 29 Del. C. § 10161 and Title 12, Chapter 11 of theDelaware Code As to Individual Defendants)herein.275. CA repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 275, above, as if fully set forth276. Pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United StatesConstitution, the State cannot deprive CA of property without due process of law.- 80 –