inference” of scienter. To put it differently, "in those cases where motive and opportunity allegations do not alone create a strong inference of scienter, the allegations will nonetheless be relevant in determining whether the totality of allegations permits a strong inference of fraud.” Angres v. Smallworldwide PLC, 94 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1174 (D.Colo.2000). 45 . See, e.g., Phillips, 190 F.3d at 623; Chill, 101 F.3d at 268; Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir.2000); Melder v. Morris, 27 F.3d 1097, 1102 (5th Cir.1994) ("[P]lamtiff's allegation of motive — basically that the defendant and officers were motivated by incentive compensation — -would effectively eliminate the state of mind requirement as to all corporate officers and defendants.”). 46 . Compare Provenz, 102 F.3d at 1491 (<HOLDING>); and Schlagal v. Learning Tree Int’l, No. CV
holding that 20 of individual defendants holdings raised an inference of scienter holding that sale by one defendant of 11 of holdings in light of absence of any sales by other defendants undermined allegations of scienter holding that total proceeds from insider sales of 106 million raised inference of scienter holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter holding that sales of corporate stock by six individual defendants for a total of approximately 4200000 were sufficient to support inference of scienter against them under prepslra pleading standard