Inc. Sec. Litig., 970 F.Supp. 746 (N.D.Cal.1997) (concluding PSLRA eliminated both tests and requires plaintiffs to allege — for each misstatement — specific facts that constitute circumstantial evidence of conscious behavior); Marksman, 927 F.Supp. at 1310-1311 (concluding that two-prong test survives); Zeid, 973 F.Supp. at 916 (requiring “substantial factual basis” for strong inference of scienter and modifying two-prong test for forward looking statements); Schlagel v. Learning Tree Int’l, CV 98-0020, slip opinion at 31 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 23, 1998) (concluding that legislative history of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 confirms that Congress did not intend the PSLRA to alter scienter requirements); Rehm v. Eagle Fin. Corp., 954 F.Supp. 1246, 1253 (N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>); In re Baesa, 969 F.Supp. at 242 (concluding
holding that a stipulation as to the law is generally not binding upon the courts holding that the characterization of a contempt sanction is a question of law and is not binding on this court holding that epa need not incorporate particular tests when evaluating applications if relevant statutory language does not explicitly require such tests holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that both tests survive but prereform act case law is not binding