Offering, yet delayed revising the estimates until after the Offering. (See Pis.’ Opp’n at 45.) But there are simply no facts alleged, let alone stated with particularly, to suggest that the defendants knew of the mistake before late July 2008, the date Defendant Shattuck claimed they were discovered. (See Compl. ¶¶ 77-78); see also Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 694 F.Supp.2d 287, 300 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (finding scienter had not been pled where the plaintiff had not “specifically identified any reports or statements or any dates or time frame in which Defendants were put on notice of contradictory information”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); In re PXRE Group, Ltd., Sec. Litig., 600 F.Supp.2d 510, 536 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). The plaintiffs’
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 so where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had colluded to claim falsely that the plaintiffs physician had informed the claims adjuster that the plaintiff had been released to work and where the plaintiff was later discharged from employment and denied workers compensation benefits 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 plaintiffs need only allege that defendants provided information to the securities analysts upon which the reports were based holding that plaintiffs must specifically allege defendants knowledge of facts or access to information contradicting their public statements