With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reports, how she learned of them, who drafted them, or which officers received them); see also Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1231 (9th Cir.2002) (same). Nor do Plaintiffs allege facts to show that any particular Harmonic Defendant was aware that AT & T had been cancel-ling orders. Plaintiffs fail to allege that the same person who read these internal reports was the person who released the alleged misleading statements. Plaintiffs’ allegation the Harmonic Defendants therefore knew AT & T would be slowing its purchases of Harmonic inventory is unsupported by factual allegations. Finally, Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to the information allegedly provided by unnamed management sources is insufficient. See Haft v. Eastland Fin. Corp., 772 F.Supp. 1315 (D.R.I.1991) (<HOLDING>). C. DiviCom Sales Plaintiffs also allege that

A: 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
B: holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter
C: holding that recounting of analysts opinions did not prove underlying factual support necessary to create a strong inference of scienter
D: holding that vague allegations against unnamed executives and senior  employees do not raise a strong inference of scienter
C.