this argument lacks merit. Finally, the court has determined that Plaintiffs have properly stated a claim for retaliation under the False Claims Act; therefore, the court will only address this argument briefly here with respect to PhyCor individually. Plaintiffs have alleged that PhyCor owned/controlled Straub and PhyCor, Hawaii {see Second Amended Complaint at 9, paragraph 17); therefore, PhyCor could potentially be liable for Straub's retaliation. Several circuits have held that vicarious liability applies to a principal corporation under the Act either when an agent of the corporation acts with apparent authority, or when an employee acts within the scope of his employment for the benefit of the corporation. See, e.g. United States v. O’Connell, 890 F.2d 563, 569 (1st Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Grand Union Co. v. United States, 696 F.2d
recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation holding that a corporation is held responsible for acts not within the agents corporate powers strictly construed but which the agent has assumed to perform for the corporation when employing the corporate powers actually authorized and in such eases there need be no written authority under seal or vote of the corporation in order to constitute the agency or to authorize the act holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation holding that corporation will be liable under false claims act if agent acts with apparent authority even if corporation received no benefit from agents fraud holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation