aspect and an aspect that encompasses a representation of present fact/ the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA does not apply.” APAC Teleservice, 1999 WL 1052004, at *7 (quoting Shaw v. Digital Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1213 (1st Cir.1996)). The alleged forward-looking statement states that the Company “believe[s]” that the software modifications “now enables us to identify and correct faulty data.” Prospectus at 6 (emphasis added). This constitutes a representation of present fact, not protected by the PSLRA’s safe harbor provision. Moreover, plaintiffs have pled that the forward-looking statement was made with actual knowledge of its falsity. See SAC ¶ 111. Such allegations render the statements actionable. See In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 133, 141 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>). 11. Statements Concerning the Causes of the
holding that although of course an employee is not required to modify his religious beliefs a reasonable accommodation need not be on the employees terms only holding that statements that a company was financially solid were actionable where defendants did not have a reasonable basis for them holding that some gaap allegations were soft information because the allegations in plaintiffs complaint focused on defendants beliefs about accounting numbers not on the actual data they reported holding that statements based upon defendants beliefs are actionable because there was evidence that the defendants were aware of undisclosed facts that seriously undermined the accuracy of their alleged opinions or beliefs holding that defendants failed to demonstrate that an employment dispute turned on issues of doctrine or polity and therefore the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction and the sincerity of defendants religious beliefs was not legally relevant to their jurisdictional claim