Delaware Code

12 Del. C. § 1178 (2026)

State Escheator’s contract with another to conduct compliance review and examination and limit on future employment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The State Escheator may contract with a person to conduct compliance reviews and examinations in accordance with this chapter but no such person shall be assigned more than 50% of the number of all such compliance reviews and examinations undertaken subsequent to January 1, 2015.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, every contract between the State and a person conducting examinations and providing any unclaimed property examination or consulting services must meet all of the following:

(1) Be for a term of no more than 5 years.

(2) Provide for payment exclusively on an hourly basis for all compliance reviews and examinations of holders incorporated in Delaware, except for compliance reviews and examinations of customer accounts or policies for securities accounts and life insurance policies.

(3) Require compliance with any state-approved nondisclosure agreement and nonsolicitation provisions.

(4) Provide that the person may not hire, retain, or compensate in any way any employee of the Department of Finance who functions in a senior supervisory role related to unclaimed property, including the Secretary of Finance, a Deputy Secretary of Finance, the State Escheator, Assistant Director of Enforcement, or Audit Manager, for a period of 2 years from the time such employee leaves the employ of the Department of Finance.

81 Del. Laws, c. 1, § 2; 83 Del. Laws, c. 59, § 19;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2022 · leading case: State of Delaware v. Card Compliant, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Delaware v. Card Compliant, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “This provision has since been amended and re-designated as 12 Del. C. § 1178. See 81 Del. Laws ch. 1, § 2 (2017) (codified at 12 Del.”

Eaton Corp. v. Geisenberger (D. Del. 2020). · cites it 2× “11 (citing 12 Del. C. § 1178(a) and related regulations), and FOTL alleges that “Defendants rely on the use of contingent fee auditors whose financial self-interest influenced the result of the audit” and that IAG is “the contractor conducting [its] audit.”

Univar, Inc. v. Geisenberger (D. Del. 2022). · cites it 2× “A at 5; 12 Del. C. § 1178). Further, they assert that the State controls the Audit and that Kelmar merely acts as the State’s agent.”

— 12 Del. C. § 1178(a) — 1 case

Eaton Corp. v. Geisenberger (D. Del. 2020). “11 (citing 12 Del. C. § 1178(a) and related regulations), and FOTL alleges that “Defendants rely on the use of contingent fee auditors whose financial self-interest influenced the result of the audit” and that IAG is “the contractor conducting [its] audit.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.