”). 1. Magnitude of the Fraud A number of decisions cite the magnitude of the fraud in weighing an alleged inference of scienter. See In re Sunterra Corp. Sec. Litig., 199 F.Supp.2d 1308, 1838 (M.D.Fla.2002) (citing Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 27 F.Supp.2d 1324 (N.D.Ga.1998), as stating that “a drastic overstatement” coupled with GAAP violations could be enough to raise the requisite strong inference against an auditor); In re Sunbeam Sec. Litig., 89 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1345 (S.D.Fla.1999) (citing the allegation that the “sheer magnitude of the restatements of Sunbeam’s financial statements suggests that Arthur Andersen should have known or was severely reckless not to know that its Unqualified Audit Opinion was misleading”); Carley Capital, 27 F.Supp.2d at 1339-40 (<HOLDING>); In re Sahlen & Assoc., Inc. Sec. Litig., 773
holding that plaintiff must plead strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior holding that the scienter requirement was satisfied by identification of specific facts constituting strong circumstantial evidence of recklessness and allegations that defendants knew of or recklessly ignored a series of accounting improprieties holding that the totality and magnitude of that defendants accounting violations constituted strong circumstantial evidence of reckless or conscious behavior holding that admission of hearsay was harmless where strong circumstantial evidence established the same facts holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent