such generalized allegations are irrelevant —that they are inferentially barren — or that other factual allegations cannot strengthen the inference of scien-ter to be drawn from them. But, in order to satisfy their pleading burden by pleading motive alone, securities fraud plaintiffs must plead additional facts going to motive that sufficiently strengthen any inferences of scien-ter and weaken other inferences of a noncul-pable state of mind. Even if the motive allegations in a complaint fail in themselves to meet the pleading burden, however, they may still be considered along with other allegations of direct or circumstantial facts in the ultimate determination of whether the totality of the circumstances raise a " 6384, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 20306, at *49 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 29, 1998) (<HOLDING>); and In re MTC Elec. Techs. Shareholders
holding that total proceeds from insider sales of 106 million raised inference of scienter holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis  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 holding that 20 of individual defendants holdings raised an 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