in the Court's ruling on the earlier motion to dismiss, the Court does not find the text and structure of the SRA inconsistent with the Court’s interpretation of the pleading standard. For example, plaintiffs refer to the proportionate liability provisions of the SRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(g), to support their position that liability for non-knowing behavior still exists under the new law. Section 78u-4(g)(2)(A) states, "[a]ny covered person against whom a final judgment is entered in a private action shall be liable for damages jointly and severally only if the trier of fact specifically determines that such covered person knowingly committed a violation of the securities laws.’’ This provision, however, applies generally to the Securities Exchange Ac F.2d 315, 319 (5th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, they may be admissible not to
holding that daily reports prepared by agency investigator were not records within a system of records since they were retrievable by the investigators identifier and not accessed by plaintiffs name holding letter from specialist to treating physician fell within business entry exception to the hearsay rule holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule holding that gun shop records kept pursuant to government requirements are admissible business records holding that shipping reports prepared by private citizen and submitted to the government pursuant to law fell within government records exception to hearsay rule