financing and expand are not, without more, sufficient to allege scienter; to hold otherwise would support a finding of scienter for any company that seeks to enhance its business prospects. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1038 (9th Cir.2002). In addition, it is common for executive compensation, including stock options and bonuses, to be based partly on the executive’s success in achieving key corporate goals. Thus, especially given the holistic approach to assessing scienter adopted in Tellabs and the requirement that we take into account plausible opposing inferences, we will not conclude that there is fraudulent intent merely because a defendant’s compensation was based in part on such successes. See Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd., 551 F.3d 1156, 1166 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the individual defendants’
holding that recounting of analysts opinions did not prove underlying factual support necessary to create a strong inference of scienter holding that vague allegations against unnamed executives and senior  employees do not raise a strong inference of scienter holding the pslra standard for pleading scienter is more stringent than the second circuits standard prior to the act and that motive and opportunity is not an independent basis to show defendants had scienter holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter holding that where a defendant sold no stock at all this suggested that there was no insider information from which to benefit and there was not a strong inference of scienter