to claims already barred by the previous statute of limitations at the time the Act was enacted. The majority of courts addressing this issue have found that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not revive claims which expired under the previous, one-year statute of limitations. See In re Enter. Mortgage Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 295 F.Supp.2d 307, 312-17 (2003) (dismissing plaintiffs’ claims because Congress did not intend for the Act to revive previously time-barred action); In Re Heritage Bond Litig., 289 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1148 (C.D.Cal.2003) (finding the Act did not apply to § 10(b) and § 20(a) claims already barred at the time of the Act’s enactment); In re Enron Corp. Sec. Derivative & “Erisa” Litig., No. MDL-1446, Civ.A.H-01-3624, 2004 WL 405886, at *17 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 25, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 303 F.Supp.2d
holding that because the act lacked an expression of specific intent to apply retroactively the extended limitations period did not revive claims holding 1997 sra amendment does not apply retroactively to revive appellants previously washed out juvenile adjudications holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that even though statute of limitations on claims brought by the kansas public employees retirement system explicitly applied retroactively it was not intended to revive lapsed actions holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively