scienter under the PSLRA, because the Plaintiffs have neglected to include details concerning those meetings, such as when the meetings occurred or what became known as a result of those dealings. For a more fundamental reason, this Court will not consider the allegations in those paragraphs when it decides whether Plaintiffs have adequately plead scienter. This Court has concluded above that the group pleading doctrine did not survive the passage of the PSLRA. As a consequence, this Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning red flags, when deciding whether the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint complies with the pleading standards adopted by the statute, since, in the main, those allegations refer to the Defendants generally. See Southland Securities Corp., 365 F.3d at 365 (<HOLDING>). Under the rubric of red flags, the Defendants
holding that the jury need not be specifically instructed to find whether there is a connection between the defendant the weapon and the crime holding that consistent with our rejection of the group pleading doctrine we do not construe allegations contained in the complaint against the defendants as a group as properly imputable to any particular individual defendant unless the connection between the individual defendant and the allegedly fraudulent statement is specifically pleaded holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true holding that group pleading did not render complaint infirm where complaint provided fair notice of claims holding that government material witnesses do not constitute a particular social group