And individual witness accounts are not required to allege scienter. In re Pain-Care Holdings Sec. Litig., 541 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2008), adopted by 541 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (lack of witness accounts did not negate scienter); Monroe Cnty. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Southern Co., 333 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (scienter did not require "specific details of first-hand interactions with a defendant in which they advised him that existing facts contradicted his public disclosures . . . ."). III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs rely on In re PainCare Holdings Securities Litigation, in which defendants issued financial restatements for five consecutive years (nearly the entire financial life of the company), which reduced net the company's income by more than $36 million. 541 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1287 (M.D.Fla.2008). There, the original financial statements allegedly contained false valuations and expenses.

In the cases on which plaintiffs rely, there were extensive allegations of scienter in addition to the defendant CFO's experience and accounting background or resignation. See In re Paincare Holdings Sec. Litig., 541 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (holding, based on CEO and CFO's positions within the company, access to insider information, experience and accounting backgrounds, the fact that their bonuses were tied to the company's earnings, “and, significantly, that they knew of the GAAP violations prior to informing the public, ” that plaintiffs had pleaded scienter with respect to CEO and CFO); ArthroCare Corp. Sec. Litig, 726 F.Supp.2d at 725 (holding that facts pleaded, “including the presence of significant, repeated red flags, the role of the Individual Defendants in the company, the magnitude and duration of the Restatement and the fraud, the allegations of insider trading, and the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, ” collectively gave rise to strong inference of at least severe recklessness, but noting “the resignations in this case bear little, if at all, on the scienter analysis.”). In the instant case, for the reasons discussed, plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged scienter and cannot rely on Reynolds' job title, exper

Plaintiffs must show that "the subject of the fraudulent statement or omission was the cause of the actual loss suffered, i.e. , that the misstatement[s] or omission[s] concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security." In re Paincare Holdings Sec. Litig. , 541 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1293–94 (M.D. Fla. 2008). A plaintiff "need not rely on a single, complete, corrective disclosure; rather, it is possible to show that the truth gradually leaked out into the marketplace through a series of partial disclosures."

However, the existence of this potential defense does not preclude Plaintiffs from moving forward with their claim at this stage of litigation. Cf. In re Paincare Holdings Sec. Litig., 541 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1293 (M.D.Fla.2008) (stating that defendant's facts negating nefarious intent “such as the fact that the Company's financials were reviewed and certified by an independent auditor, the accounting methodology was disclosed at all times, and the lack of traditional ‘red flags' such as confidential witnesses or insider trading” consist of potential defenses, which did not preclude plaintiffs from adequately stating a Section 10(b) claim). 2. Non-disclosure of Hilead Transaction

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged GAAP violations, has not alleged Birch's motive, has not alleged any specific factors that should have alerted Birch to the falsity of the financial data, and has not alleged that Birch controlled the dissemination of the financial data. Furthermore, unlike in In re Paincare Holdings Securities Litigation, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2008), where the complaint alleged the details of the individual defendants' positions within the company, their access to insider information, experience and accounting backgrounds, by which they knew of the GAAP standards, that their bonuses were tied to the company's earnings, and, significantly, that they knew of the GAAP violations prior to informing the public, Plaintiff in this case has not alleged any of these things. Plaintiff has not alleged the details of Birch's job, has not alleged that Birch had access to insider information, or for that matter, what information Birch had access to, has not alleged Birch's experience or accounting or financial background, has not alleged that Birch knew GAAP standards, has not alleged that Birch's bonus was tied to IBSG's earnings, and has not alleged that Birch knew of any GAAP violation prior to informing the public.