of earnings does not support a strong, or even a weak, inference of scienter.”). However, when “coupled with evidence of ‘corresponding fraudulent intent,’ ” a restatement or ac counting violations may provide some evidence of scienter. Novak, 216 F.3d at 309 (quoting Chill, 101 F.3d at 270); In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 05cvl897, 2009 WL 3380621, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2009). In this case, the plaintiff has paired Orthofix’s admissions in the Restatement with sufficient factual allegations to create a strong inference of scienter for Vaters, McCollum, and Buxton. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the size of the purported fraud may also contribute to an inference of scienter. See In re Scholastic Corp. Sec. Litig., 252 F.3d 63, 77 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81, 92 (2d
holding that a total of 24 million in charges undermines at the pleading stage the argument that the defendants were unaware of any increase in returns holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage holding that the application of the fair use doctrine at the pleading stage is appropriate holding that the lower court erred both in requiring production of copies of the defendants income tax returns and in receiving the returns into evidence over objection holding that plaintiffs need not reveal confidential sources at the pleading stage