Fund’s net asset value. However, Plaintiffs fail to allege facts that demonstrate these fees are exorbitant or at all in excess of the industry standard. The desire to maintain high compensation in such circumstances does not constitute motive for the purposes of this inquiry. ECA 553 F.3d at 197 (“Motives that are common to most corporate officers, such as the desire for the corporation to appear profitable and the desire to keep stock prices high to increase officer compensation, do not constitute ‘motive’ for purposes of this inquiry.”); see also Stephenson v. Citco Grp. Ltd., 700 F.Supp.2d 599, 620-21 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (finding economic interest in retaining clients not probative of motive to ignore Madoffs fraud); In re Astra-Zeneca See. Litig., 559 F.Supp.2d 453, 468 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom. State Univ. Ret. Sys. of Ill.
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 financial gain from compensation for professional services is not a sufficient motive for purposes of pleading scienter holding that in pleading scienter arguing that the motive for defrauding investors was to increase the companys profits or to increase officer compensation is not sufficient holding that proceeds means profits only when imposing a money laundering count leads to a radical increase in the statutory maximum sentence and only when nothing in the legislative history suggests that congress intended such an increase holding in the ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel context that any increase in a defendants sentence is prejudicial