actions despite their ultimate responsibility for all aspects of the funds’ operations.” (TPC ¶ 36). Courts in this circuit have held that “where motive and opportunity do not exist, the strength of the circumstantial allegations [regarding fraudulent intent] must be correspondingly greater.” Hart v. Internet Wire, Inc., 145 F.Supp.2d 360, 367 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court finds that Appaloosa and Tepper have provided scant specificity about the facts on which their beliefs are based, and consequently they fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) (where fraud has been alleged, “the circumstances constituting fraud ... shall be stated with particularity.”); Ross v. A.H. Robins Co., 607 F.2d 545, 558-59 (2d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); Feasby v. Industri-Matematik Int’l Corp., No.
holding no scienter had been alleged where the plaintiffs failed to allege that the defendants had access to information that specifically informed them of the alleged flaws in the preparation of pxres loss estimate reports holding that scienter had not adequately been pled where the plaintiffs provided none of the required facts underlying the complaints allegations as to the information that was supposedly available to the individual defendants holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action holding scienter not adequately alleged where the complaint lacked sufficient specificity as to facts regarding how and when defendants received information which they allegedly recklessly ignored