Aрpellant Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust (“Crowell Trust”) appeals the district court’s 2 dismissal of its class action against Possis Medical, Inc., Robert G. Dutcher, and Eapen Chacko (collectively “Possis Mеdical”) for alleged securities fraud. Crowell Trust argues that the district court erred in determining that its pleading faded to meet the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Rеform Act (“PSLRA”). 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 (2000). Alternatively, Crowell Trust argues that the district court erred in not granting leave to amend its complaint. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.
I. BACKGROUND
Possis Medical is a corporation largely focused on the production of the AngioJet, a non-surgical catheter system designed to remove blood clots with minimal vascular trauma. In 2001, Possis Medical began a cliniсal trial (the “AiMI study”) to determine whether the AngioJet could be utilized in a wider range of medical procedures. During the AiMI study, Possis Medical made several public statements regarding the study’s potentiаlly favorable impact on company revenues. In August of 2004, Possis Medical released the AiMI stufly results which did not support expanded AngioJet usage. Upon the release of this information, the value of Possis Medical stock dropped considerably. Based on this decline and upon the statements made by Possis Medical, Crowell Trust attempted to bring a class action agаinst Possis Medical for alleged securities fraud. The district court found Crowell Trust’s pleading insufficient and dismissed the complaint without granting leave to amend.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal оf an amended complaint.
See Fla. State Bd. of Admin. v. Green Tree,
III. DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal of Crowell Trust’s Complaint
To survive a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, a securities plaintiff must point to:
(1) misrepresentations or omissions of matеrial fact or acts that operated as a fraud or deceit in violation of the rule;
(2) causation, often analyzed in terms of materiality and reliance;
(3) scienter on the part of the defendants; and
(4) economic harm сaused by the fraudulent activity occurring in connection with the purchase and sale of a security.
In re K-tel Int’l, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
As for as the misrepresentation prong, Crowell Trust’s pleading did not provide the level of detail necessary to support its allegation. “[R]ote allegations that the defendants knowingly made false statements of material fact” alone are insufficient.
In re Navarre Corp. Sec. Litig.,
Crowell Trust also fails to “set forth facts that give a strong reason to bеlieve that there was reckless or intentional wrongdoing,” or scienter, on the part of Possis Medical.
Navarre,
*783
First, the anonymous testimony offered by Crowell Trust does not establish intentional or severely reckless conduct by Possis Medical. As noted, аll that the Court can infer from the proffered testimony, even accepting the allegations as true, is that several lower level employees had heard rumors that the AiMi study was not going as anticipated. Crowell Trust, however, fails to provide any information regarding how employees at this level of the company would have access to the AiMi study information. This level оf detail fails to provide meaningful support to Crowell Trust’s scienter allegation.
See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Chubb,
Crowell Trust also argues that the overarching importance of the AiMi study to Possis Medical supports an inference of scienter. According to Crowell Trust, the fact that the AiMi study was vitаl to the company’s future supports an inference that Possis Medical executives were aware of its negative results prior to making statements discussing the study’s potentially positive imрact. Some courts have found this rationale sufficient to support an inference of scienter.
See, e.g., In re Ancor Commc’ns, Inc: Sec. Litig.,
Lastly, Crowell Trust argues that a series of stock sales by Possis Medical “insiders” establishes sufficient motive and opportunity to support the requested infеrence. However, this argument also fails as “[ijnsider stock sales are not inherently suspicious; they become so only when the level of trading is ‘dramatically out of line with prior trading practices at times calculated to maximize the personal benefit from the undisclosed information.’ ”
Navarre,
B. Refusal to Grant Leave to Amend
Generally, “parties should not be allowed to amend their complaint without showing how the complaint could be amendеd to save the meritless claim.” Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d *784 402, 409 (8th Cir.1999). On appeal, Crowell Trust has failed to demonstrate any meaningful basis upon which it could amend its complaint to comply with the heightened securities pleading standards. Crowell Trust’s only argument is that Possis Medical’s answer somehow admits that the AiMI study data was received several months prior to its disclosure to the investing public. Even accepting this admission argument, it is difficult to see how this would help Crowell Trust’s pleading to survive a Rule 12 motion. All of the statements alleged by Crowell Trust to be false or misleading occurred prior to the date Possis Medical allegedly admitted to receiving the AiMI study data. All of the stock transactions viewed by Crowell Trust as “suspicious” had already occurred as well. As Crowell Trust did not establish how its complaint could be amended, the district court did not err in denying leave to amend on the basis of futility.
IY. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the district court’s dismissal of Crowell Trust’s cause of action is AFFIRMED.
Notes
. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.