With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Proxy Statement and more than two years before the enactment of the statute. Thus, the extended statute of limitations under Sarbanes-Oxley does not revive Plaintiffs’ time-barred claims. In support of their retroactivity argument, Plaintiffs cite to an SEC amicus brief, filed in connection with a non-prece-dential case, AIG Asian Infrastructure v. Chase Manhattan, 122 Fed.Appx. 541, 2005 WL 435406 (2d Cir.2005), which urged the Second Circuit to retroactively apply the new limitations period under Sarbanes-Oxley based on the plain meaning of Section 804(b). See Pls.App. G; Pls. Opp. at 15. However, not only did the AIG Asian court refuse to adopt the SEC’s position, but the retroactivity argument was explicitly rejected by the Second Circuit in Enterprise Mortgage, 391 F.3d at 406 (<HOLDING>). The Seventh and Eighth Circuits have also

A: holding retroactive application
B: holding that the act is retroactive
C: holding that the act is not retroactive
D: holding that sarbanesoxley is not retroactive and that neither the statutory language nor the legislative history of section 804 indicate that congress clearly favored retroactive application
D.