Shortlink

ACTION ALERT–AMENDMENTS GUTTING THE CID PROVISIONS OF THE VIRGINIA FRAUD AGAINST TAXPAYERS ACT



ACTION ALERT–AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED GUTTING THE VIRGINIA FRAUD AGAINST TAXPAYERS ACT

As readers are aware, legislation has been submitted by state Sen. Jill Vogel to amend the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act such that it is brought up to date with the Federal False Claims Act.  That legislation, SB1262 is needed and should be passed.

It appears that several ill-advised attempts are also being made to gut the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.  Specifically, SB831 and SB1314 were submitted in response to AG Ken Cuccinelli’s civil investigative demand (“CID”) to UVa. 

SB831 provides that the Attorney General “may not issue a civil investigative demand to a Virginia public institution of higher education when the claim relates to a matter of academic inquiry or research.”  This legislation would help to create a free-fraud zone in the academic community.   

In case anyone needs proof that there are a certain percentage of academics in the world who are completely capable of falsifying records and/or making false statements in order to get grants, I suggest you google “false claims act” and “university” or “academic research.”  Enough said.   

SB1314  (by Sen. McEachin) goes a step further, and repeals the ability of the Attorney General to issue civil investigative demands altogether.  McEachin, therefore, seems to be in favor of making Virginia a free-fraud zone altogether. 

These bills might have disastrous consequences.  No one is arguing that the Attorney General should not have the ability to file an affirmative civil enforcement action to enforce the terms of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act; as I have said before, the purpose of a CID is to AVOID litigation in the first place by allowing the potential defendant to work with law enforcement to avoid being sued.  

So, what SB831 and SB1314 would really accomplish would be to force the Attorney General to file a civil lawsuit when fraud was suspected. 

Shortlink

Important Breaking News on the Legislative Front–state Sen. Jill Vogel and Del. Greg Habeeb Sponsor Amendments to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act!!


As regular readers are aware, the Federal False Claims Act has been amended  and improved recently on three occasions, starting with the March 2009 FERA Amendments.  All of the changes were for the better, and all of them were based on experience with the 1986 amendments to the FCA.  

Back in 2002 when Virginia passed the VFATA, the General Assembly did the smart thing and adopted the Federal FCA word-for-word.  This is the smart thing for many different reasons–perhaps most important, when you adopt the Federal False Claims Act’s language, you incorporate 147-plus years of judicial interpretations for your state court’s judges to rely on.    

With the recent amendments, however, the VFATA is out of synch with the federal statute, and Virginia’s taxpayers are not protected by the very best tools.  So, without a doubt, amendments to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act were always in the cards.

We held off with Virginia legislation last year because it appeared further changes to the Federal FCA were likely.  That turned out to be a good move, because indeed in March of 2010 further changes were made, and now the Commonwealth can get all of the updates with one fell swoop.

Thus, I am please to announce that state Sen. Jill Vogel has introduced SB1262 in the state Senate and that Delegate Greg Habeeb will be sponsoring this legislation in the House of Delegates. 

SB1262 modernizes the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act for the 21st Century.  In the 1986, the drafters of the Federal False Claims Act broke new ground, and it is only reasonable to expect that after 24 years of experience with the statute, some things would become apparent that were not apparent initially.

Among the changes made by SB1262 are these, all of which mirror the federal government’s changes to the Federal FCA:  

==> A correction of the Allison Engine decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a false invoice or record must be presented directly to the Commonwealth itself, rather than to a subcontractor or a grantee of the Commonwealth. 

==> Changes to a number of key definitions in the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act; of particular importance are the new definitions of the words “material” and “claim.”

==>The power to dismiss a case based on the public disclosure bar is placed in the hands of the Virginia Attorney General, which is where it belonged all along.  The new public disclosure bar reads “the Court shall dismiss an action or claim under this section, unless opposed by the Commonwealth, if substantially the same allegations or transactions alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed.”  The underlined portion is new, and gives the AG the power to decide if the relator beings something to the table such that he or she should be allowed to share in the recovery. 

The “original source” exception to the public disclosure bar is expanded by the SB1262 to include any relator who can add “knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions … “

==>SB1262 makes it clear for the first time that retention of overpayments by the Commonwealth is unlawful; currently, the statute is very clear about what happens to those who take an affirmative step to get (or keep) money of the Commonwealth to which they are not entitled, but the amendments make it clear that even without an affirmative step, there is no “finders keepers” rule when it comes to money belonging to the Commonwealth.  

==> The conspiracy section of the VFATA (Virginia Code 8.01-216.3(A)(3)) is amended to make a conspiracy to violate any portion of the VFATA unlawful.  (Currently, it is only unlawful to conspire to violate 8.01-216.3(A)(1). 

==>The Virginia Attorney General finally has the ability to share materials obtained from the Civil Investigative Demand with other departments of government and, if the AG deems it necessary, with the qui tam relator and is or her lawyers. 

There is no word yet on when hearings will be held, but I strongly encourage all of my readers to contact their Delegate and state Senator and urge them to support SB1262.   

Updates will follow…..  

   

Shortlink

An Excellent Example of the Need for State False Claims Acts


From the Windy City, we have an excellent example of a case with “Potential State False Claims Act case” written all over it. 

It seems a one-time business partner of Mayor Richard Daley’s son was indicted for an alleged scheme to obtain work for a company he ran by using a “pass-through” minority-owned company.  

 The Chicago Tribune online has the full story. 

Simply put, a “pass-through” scheme is a common type of false claims act case.  As an important public policy matter, many federal, state and local government contracts have a provision giving minority-owned businesses a leg up in the competition for the work.  

Some contractors choose to cheat, however, by pretending to be a minority-owned Enterprise in order to get the contract.  There are a number of ways this can be done, including by finding a minority-owned Enterprise to serve only as a “front” for a non-minority owned business.  The minority owned-company gets the contract, but the larger company does the work.  

The above example is just one way this particular type of scam can work.  Another excellent example of this type of case found in Ab-Tech Const., Inc. v. U.S., 31 Fed. Cl. 429 (Fed. Cl. 1994).         

Ab-Tech is a classic from this line of cases, and it also demonstrates nicely the damages the government suffers by such schemes, and how serious the ramifications can be for those companies that choose to engage in unfair business practices.  In Ab-Tech, each invoice (or payment voucher) submitted by the defendants was false and was a violation of the Federal False Claims Act.  

To my knowledge, there have not been any claims similar to this one brought under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, but there should be lots of these types of cases out there. 

And, of course, any individual with personal, first-hand information about this type of fraud on the government would stand to gain a healthy reward if they followed the qui tam process provided by in the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.      

Shortlink

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to Hear Argument on the Scope of the FLSA’s Anti-Retaliation Provisions


Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit The case is captioned Dellinger v. SAIC, and the question before the Fourth Circuit is whether the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA protect an applicant for employment.  Stated a slightly different way, the question is whether a prospective employer can lawfully discriminate against an applicant for employment after learning that the applicant filed an FLSA lawsuit against a past employer. 


The plaintiff in this case was qualified for the job with SAIC; moreover, she had received a written offer of employment, had passed the drug test, and had otherwise met every requirement SAIC made of her.  Because the job required a security clearance, before she could officially begin employment, she was required to inform SAIC if she had been a party to any sort of litigation. 

She truthfully answered that she had filed an FLSA lawsuit against a previous employer, and that is where things fell apart.  Suddenly, she went from someone who had a written offer of employment and a date to start work to someone without a job.  To read the Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, click
/files/116785-109034/13_Opinion.pdf”>dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, and we took this appeal to the Fourth Circuit.  To read the opening brief click t shall be unlawful for any person to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding.


This case therefore addresses the question of whether an applicant for employment is an “employee” as defined by the statute.  In the past, Courts have interpreted the term “employee” broadly to include former employees as within the protections of the FLSA anti-retaliation provisions, but again, there is very little case law concerning whether an applicant for employment falls within that scope.  In fact, prior to this case, there were only two District Court opinions on this subject.   

The U.S. Department of Labor filed an excellent
Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter

Shortlink

Announcing the First ebook on the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act


As the year 2010 winds down I wanted to announce the publication (or rather the republication) of my 54-page practice guide for the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.  

I get somewhat frequent requests for this material, and I am always happy to send folks a copy.  It will be available on www.amazon.com in the next couple of days with a sticker price of $19.99. 

Or, if anyone would like a pdf copy for free, I will provide one via email to any new subscriber to this blog, whether on kindle  or via email feed.  

These are the materials I prepared for the 2008 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act CLE at the Office of the Attorney General in Richmond, and while they are somewhat out of date for the Federal False Claims Act, they are perfectly up-to-date on our Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. 

Happy New Year!

Shortlink

New Opinion from the Eastern District of Virginia on Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute



The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion in one of my False Claims Act cases this week.  The case is captioned U.S. ex rel Ron Decesare v. Americare In Home Nursing, et al.  You can read the opinion Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter

Shortlink

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Appeals Ruling on Civil Investigative Demand to University of Virginia


Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter

Shortlink

Comments on the S.E.C.’s Proposed Rulemaking


Today, Taxpayers Against Fraud  delivered its Harry Markopolos  for years despite the fact that he had crystal-clear proof of Bernie Madoff’s fraud.  So you take the human nature factor above and multiply it times ten, or maybe even twenty.  

Yes, the SEC is now under new management, and yes an awful lot of the old management “resigned to spend more time with family,” but I think it will take time for the new SEC folks to prove themselves.  

And consider this, target audience for the whistle blower provisions includes financial professionals–and by and large these people not only do not trust the SEC, they think the SEC is something of a joke.  No doubt, putting the SEC in charge of the program with so much authority will kill this idea in its infancy. 

In an academic sense, I also wonder whether the incredibly successful qui tam model of the Federal False Claims Act and the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act will apply to other contexts like Wall Street.  Just putting money on the table certainly won’t make this program successful, because the exact people the government is targeting already make enormous salaries and bonuses.  

Moreover, for better or for worse, money is not the be all and end all of human behavior.  IMHO, the False Claims Act works well for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because the ranks of defense contractors, the health care industry and others have a disproportionate share of patriotic Americans who know right from wrong and are not afraid to speak out about it. 

In other words, the Federal False Claims Act depends on individuals who have a healthy, working, moral compass.  Only time will tell if there are enough individuals in the financial industry with a healthy, working moral compass to make a difference, but some of us have our doubts…..     

Shortlink

A Welcome Change in the Expert Witness Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure




On December 1, 2010, several changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective.  While most of the changes were of a technical nature, the changes to the expert witness discovery provisions were truly needed. 


Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 has been amended to expand work-product protections to cover draft expert reports, many communications between lawyers and expert witnesses, and certain information considered by expert witnesses.


Specifically, Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) now limits discovery to “facts or data considered by the witness” in forming his or her expert opinion. Under the pre-December 2010 version of Rule 26, testifying experts were required to disclose data or “other information” they considered regardless of whether the information was relied upon in forming an opinion. 



Most significant of all were the changes to Rule 26(b)(4)(B) and 26(b)(4)(C).  Subsection (b)(4)(B) now protects draft expert reports from disclosure.  Most courts interpreting the old Rule 26 read the rule as authorizing discovery of all draft reports and all expert communications. 

The old rule resulted in a nightmare, and it didn’t make discovery any more streamlined.  I suppose the idea behind the old model was the notion that lawyers were secretly authoring the reports of expert witnesses. 

That idea always seemed ridiculous to me because if an expert witness’ opinion was truly authored by a lawyer, it would rapidly become apparent on cross examination.  Moreover, there were already numerous safeguards in place to ensure that the expert’s opinion was really his or her opinion.  For example, all experts are required to turn over a list of the cases in which they have testified in the last four years.  

Personally, most of the time I would rather my opponent have an expert who is prepared to testify about his opinion, and who has fully and freely discussed the case with the lawyer who hired him.

The worst thing about the old system was that it gave lawyers who might already be inclined to gamesmanship lots and lots of fertile ground.  I have heard numerous tales of expert depositions that focused more on whether the other party had been provided with all draft reports, emails, etc., than on the substance of what the expert said.

Subsection (b)(4)(C) now protects all communications between counsel and testifying experts, regardless of the form.  There is an exception for communications related to: (1) compensation the expert received, (2) facts or data provided by the lawyer that the expert considered in forming opinions, and (3) assumptions provided to the expert by the lawyer that the expert relied upon in forming an opinion.

All in all, expert witness discovery will now be similar to the rules in Virginia state courts.  For the most part, those rules work well.  

The rule does not itself protect communications between counsel and other expert witnesses, such as those from whom disclosure is required under new Rule 26(a)(2)(C).