(4) explain why the statements were fraudulent.” Anatian v. Coutts Bank (Switzerland) Ltd., 193 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1999). If “there are multiple defendants involved, the plaintiff must connect the allegations of fraud to each individual defendant.” Colony at Holbrook, Inc. v. Strata G.C., Inc., 928 F.Supp. 1224, 1231 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). For example, in Moore, the court held that a complaint met this heightened pleading standard where it “contained] a chart listing twelve different mailings said to contain fraudulent representations, along with the dates of these mailings and cross-references to the paragraphs of the complaint in which the mailings [were] further discussed.” 189 F.3d at 173; see also ABF Capital Mgmt. v. Askin Capital Mgmt., L.P., 957 F.Supp. 1308, 1326 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, in Colony at Holbrook, 928
holding that confidential sources need not be named provided they are described in the complaint with sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied by the source would possess the information alleged holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading holding that complaint met particularity requirement where for each defendant the plaintiffs identified and quoted from specific written materials they alleged were distributed to and relied upon by them and described how these materials were false or failed to disclose material information holding that although the government has a duty to make good faith effort to discover and disclose alleged brady material a failure to abide by this requirement will not require reversal where defendant unable to show information sought was material holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement