reckless in following, or in concealing that they were following, Heartland’s policy concerning how MDU residents would be counted. The court also held that plaintiffs had not alleged that defendants had full knowledge that it was dangerous to adopt the MDU counting policy. Id. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs have modified ¶ 13 and now allege that the individual defendants knew and understood that not disclosing information such as the MDU counting policy would mislead buyers of Heartland stock, or created a danger of misleading stock purchasers that involved an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care. See Am. Compl. ¶ 13. This assertion is framed in conclusory terms and is therefore inadequate to support a strong inference of fraud. See Comshare, 183 F.3d at 553 (<HOLDING>); Melder, 27 F.3d at 1103-04; Tuchman, 14 F.3d
holding that court may not accept claims of fraud based on speculation holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim 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 holding that securities fraud claims cannot rest on speculation and conclusory allegations holding that causation cannot be proved based on speculation