6.2 DEFINITIONS UNDER THE VFATA AND FCA
6.201 Any "Person." Both the VFATA and the federal FCA make any "person" who engages in the prohibited conduct liable jointly and severally for all damages available under the law. VFATA defines "person" as including: "any natural person, corporation, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business or trust." 16 The FCA does not define "person" in its definitions section, although it does define the term later for purposes of civil investigative demands. 17
A significant body of federal case law has developed that interprets what a person is for purposes of liability under the FCA. For example, an Indian tribe is not a person under the FCA and could not be sued when the tribe's business arm allegedly submitted false claims to the United States in association with a construction contract it obtained. 18 The individual members of the tribe, however, were subject to liability for their role in the submission of false claims. 19
In Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 20 the United States Supreme Court held that states are not persons subject to qui tam actions under the FCA. Three years later, the Supreme Court held that local governments are, however, persons subject to such suits. 21
[Page 270]
In 2012, the Supreme Court of Virginia determined that the University of Virginia was not a "person" subject to a civil investigative demand by the Attorney General of Virginia under the VFATA. 22
Under general principles of agency law, a corporate entity is liable for the acts of its officers and agents when those officers and agents are acting within the scope of their authority or if an agent has apparent authority for his or her actions. One case under the pre-1986 version of the FCA created an additional requirement that a corporation must benefit in order to be liable for the acts of its officers or agents. 23 However, in United States v. Domestic Industries, Inc., 24 the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia flatly rejected that approach, holding that the traditional view of respondeat superior applies to FCA cases and there is no requirement under the FCA that the principle or employer receive a benefit from the employee's fraud in order to be liable.
6.202 "Claim." The term "claim," which is defined in section 8.01-216.2 of the Virginia Code, obviously is very important to the FCA and VFATA. The word has a long and nuanced...
