appears to contradict the plain language of the PSLRA. In the Opposition Brief, the Plaintiffs for the first time allege that their allegations are based, in part, upon interviews with former, unnamed employees of Party City. Opposition Brief at 21. The Second Amended Complaint contains no such allegation. See generally Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs have not only failed to identify, by name, these “former employees,” they have not “described [such sources] ... with sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied by the source would posses the information alleged.” Novak, 216 F.3d at 314. Therefore, any arguments based upon interviews with unnamed “former employees” need not be considered. See In re Nice Systems, 135 F.Supp.2d at 572 (<HOLDING>). As mentioned, moreover, in a case alleged on
holding that the employers bald assertions that the officers thought that they were in compliance with the act did not satisfy the good faith requirement holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement 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 plaintiffs did not satisfy particularity requirement where plaintiffs assertions were based in part on the statements of unnamed former employees