, the heightened pleading standard for scienter. However, the issue of scienter itself is very fact-specific, requiring consideration of each individual factor as well as the context as a whole. Thus, the magnitude of the fraud, the red flags alleged, and the GAAP and GAAS violations should be examined individually, with the context as a whole also playing a role in this Court’s consideration. See In re MicroStrategy, Inc., Sec. Litig., 115 F.Supp.2d 620, 649 (E.D.Va.2000) (stating that the individual allegations in the case collectively painted a “compelling picture of scienter” and that the plaintiff must allege facts that place the GAAS violations “in a context that ‘paint[s] a portrait of an audit so reckless that a jury could infer an intent to defra Supp. 342, (S.D.Fla. 1991) (<HOLDING>); Kinney, 170 F.Supp.2d at 180 (stating that
holding that plaintiffs complaint which included the ages and nationalities of at least some of the relevant persons involved with his termination was sufficient to provide notice of plaintiffs age and national origin discrimination claims holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant had exclusive knowledge as the manufacturer did not support claim that defendant was aware of a defect holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that the allegations which included the allegation that defendant was at least grossly reckless in failing to discover that nearly twothirds of the accounts receivable were required to be written off clearly suggested that the defendant may have had a strong indication that something was seriously amiss and certainly provide defendant with fair notice of plaintiffs claims