allegations of routine corporate objectives such as the desire to obtain concerning their stock is inconsistent with Plaintiffs theory that financial motive establishes scienter here. The complaint alleges that individual defendants knew that the value of their stock options would increase if Rigel reported positive results from the clinical trial. However, because none of the defendants sold stock during the period between the allegedly fraudulent statements and the subsequent public disclosure of the detailed data, which is the period during which they would have benefitted from any allegedly fraudulent statements, the value of the stock and stock options does not support an inference of scienter. See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1067 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 436 (9th
holding that where knowledgeable insiders did not sell stock at a time that would have taken advantage of allegedly fraudulent statements there was not a strong inference of scienter holding that total proceeds from insider sales of 106 million raised inference of scienter holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter holding that where a defendant sold no stock at all this suggested that there was no insider information from which to benefit and there was not a strong inference of scienter holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold