Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Qui Tam Blogs -> Virginia Qui Tam Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Qui Tam

: Virginia Qui Tam Law

A Breif History of Qui Tam Litigation Under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act

By Zachary A. Kitts

ADVERTISEMENTS

One of my stated purposes in starting this blog was to create interest in the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act and in qui tam practice in general. In order for statutes such as the Federal False Claims Act and the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act to achieve their goals, it is necessary to build a public-private partnership between qui tam attorneys in private practice and our counterparts in the Virginia Office of the Attorney General and the United States Department of Justice.

Today's blog will focus on the history of litigation under the VFATA since January 1, 2003 when it became law. I have attached to this entry a list maintained by Guy Horsley, who serves as the co-ordinator for the VFATA in Virginia Office of the Attorney General. I obtained this list from Guy via a FOIA request for publicly available information on cases filed under the VFATA.

A few items of note about this list.

First, note the volume of the redacted material on the list. The material was redacted because these cases are still under seal, either in Virginia or somewhere else in the country. (For those of you new to state qui tam statutes, claims under the VFATA are often included as pendent state claims in qui tam cases filed in federal courts throughout the United States.)

The chart attached shows a total of nine cases under the VFATA that have been unsealed since January 1, 2003. There appear to be close to 100 cases that are still under seal and were thus redacted. Even if the vast majority of these redacted cases are nationwide complaints filed in a federal court somewhere, the volume of cases under seal is surely a good trend for the VFATA.

Second, notice that of the nine cases unsealed since 2003, the Commonwealth moved to dismiss four, four were settled immediately after unsealing, and in only one cases did the Commonwealth not intervene and not move to dismiss.

More to follow in future postings.

Zachary A. Kitts
Cook & Kitts, PLLC

Full post as published by Virginia Qui Tam Law on April 21, 2008 (boomark / email).