because, in addition to the factors set forth above, those cases included allegations of motive, such as insider trading. Here, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants had any motive, such as insider trading, to make false or misleading statements. “[W]ithout a showing of motive or opportunity, other allegations tending to show scienter ... have to be particularly strong in order to meet the [PSLRA] standard.” In re K-tel Intern., Inc. Securities Litig., 300 F.3d 881, 894 (8th Cir.2002). The Court cannot say that Plaintiff’s allegations are “particularly strong.” Id. They are largely premised upon hindsight and conduct that rises to the level of inadvertent error or negligence, but not severe recklessness. Horizon Asset Mgmt., 580 F.3d at 766 (quoting Ceridian, 542 F.3d at 249) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court concludes that
holding that the plaintiff must have more than a unilateral expectation the plaintiff must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit holding that a plaintiff must allege more than incompetence or corporate mismanagement  before a claim of negligence rises to the level of securities fraud holding that claims against corporate officers for mismanagement belong to the corporation holding that a plaintiff alleging securities fraud must show that a defendant 1 made a material misrepresentation or a material omission as to which he or she had a duty to speak 2 with scienter 3 in connection with the purchase or sale of securities holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud