(D.Mass.1999) ( “[Defendant] asserts that ... the reasoning behind Central Bank forbids holding [it] liable under status-based [agent] liability principles. I anticipate that the First Circuit, when and if it addresses this issue, will not reach the outcomes proposed by [defendant].... ”). Some district courts — including a judge in .this district — have held the contrary. See, e.g., In re Fidelity/Micron Sec. Litig., 964 F.Supp. 539, 544 (D.Mass.1997) (“To hold [defendant mutual fund] hable under Rule 10b-5 on a theory of respondeat superior would -impose liability without any showing that the market relied on statements or actions directly or indirectly attributable to [it] in evaluating Micron shares.”); Converse, Inc. v. Norwood Venture Corp., 1997 WL 742534, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales
holding that a state or agency is not a person subject to qui tam liability under the false claims act holding that sovereign immunity did not protect state agency from liability based on failure to pay assignee of contractual account receivable holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration holding that no substantial right is affected when a plaintiffs claims based on derivative liability are litigated separately from the claims that the plaintiff has asserted based on a direct liability theory because no possibility of inconsistent verdicts exists holding claims based on agency liability nonviable after central bank