throbber
Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-01966-RM-MEH
`
`UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
`464A, THE TRUSTEES OF WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS OF LOCAL 464A –
`PENSION FUND, THE TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT PLAN FOR OFFICERS,
`BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES OF LOCAL 464A,
`THE TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 464A FINAST FULL TIME EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN,
`THE TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 464A WELFARE AND PENSION BUILDING INC., and
`THE TRUSTEES OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY AMALGAMATED PENSION PLAN
`FOR ACME EMPLOYEES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION, JAYSON J. PENN,
`WILLIAM W. LOVETTE, and FABIO SANDRI
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Defendants Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation and Fabio Sandri’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
`Amended Class Action Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
`
`
`
`Defendants Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (“Pilgrim’s”) and Fabio Sandri move to dismiss
`
`Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint (“AC”) pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
`
`Reform Act of 1995 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6), and submit this incorporated
`
`memorandum of law in support of their motion.1
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The AC suffers from a fatal flaw: It conflates antitrust violations with securities fraud.
`
`
`1 On July 13, 2021, counsel for all parties conferred telephonically regarding the issues set forth in this motion,
`pursuant to Civ. Practice Standard IV.N.2.a. Plaintiff did not agree to the relief sought herein and declined to file an
`amended complaint.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 25
`
`Plaintiff conclusorily asserts that because Pilgrim’s did not disclose the anticompetitive conduct
`
`alleged in the AC, all of Defendants’ public statements regarding the drivers of Pilgrim’s
`
`performance in the broiler chicken industry must have been false or misleading. But a violation of
`
`the antitrust laws does not automatically establish securities fraud. Unlike an antitrust claim,
`
`stating a Section 10(b) claim requires a plaintiff to meet the heavy burden of pleading
`
`particularized factual allegations showing that the defendant made a materially false statement or
`
`omission in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, acted with the specific intent to
`
`deceive at the time they made each challenged statement, and that the revelation of the truth caused
`
`a cognizable loss. As set forth below, Plaintiff fails to meet this burden and its claims should be
`
`dismissed on three independent grounds.
`
`First, the AC does not plead with particularity that each disputed statement made during
`
`the Class Period was contemporaneously false or misleading. There is a glaring disconnect
`
`between the timing of the anticompetitive conduct described by Plaintiff and that of the alleged
`
`misstatements. In the AC, Plaintiff describes anticompetitive conduct by Pilgrim’s and its
`
`competitors before the Class Period (in many cases, years before)—but that is not enough to
`
`establish that Defendants’ subsequent Class Period statements about the drivers of Pilgrim’s
`
`quarterly earnings were misleading when made. Plaintiff nowhere explains—much less pleads the
`
`requisite particularized facts supporting—how the scheme it describes as occurring from 2012
`
`through 2017 renders false any of Defendants’ statements about Pilgrim’s contemporaneous
`
`financial performance from February 2017 to June 2020.
`
`The AC also fails to supply any of the requisite particulars—which drivers of which
`
`financial metrics were rendered false, by what amount, and when—supporting its claim that all of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 25
`
`Pilgrim’s statements concerning its performance were false and misleading. Plaintiff makes much
`
`of Pilgrim’s guilty plea to one count of conspiracy in restraint of competition from “at least as
`
`early as 2012 and continuing through at least early 2017.” But the anticompetitive conduct in the
`
`plea agreement (the “Agreement”) involved three contracts with a single customer that impacted
`
`$361 million of sales. To put those figures into context, during that period, Pilgrim’s had between
`
`5,000-6,500 customers and brought in over $54 billion in net sales. Misconduct affecting only one
`
`of Pilgrim’s thousands of customers and less than 1% of its sales does not support Plaintiffs’
`
`unspecified, broad-brush assertion that an antitrust conspiracy constituted the “true” driver of all
`
`of the Company’s financial performance during the Class Period. Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegation
`
`that Defendants’ statements during that time were false because the U.S. Department of Justice
`
`(“DOJ”) subsequently indicted Defendant Penn, former Pilgrim’s employee Roger Austin, and
`
`two former Claxton Poultry employees for antitrust violations on June 3, 2020 (the “Initial
`
`Indictment”) does not save its claims. The unadjudicated allegations of anticompetitive conduct in
`
`the Initial Indictment do not demonstrate that Defendants’ statements about the drivers of the
`
`Company’s success were contemporaneously false or misleading; the securities laws do not require
`
`companies to characterize their conduct as illegal. And neither Pilgrim’s nor any its executives had
`
`been charged with, found liable of, or pled guilty to, any wrongdoing during the Class Period.
`
`Second, Plaintiff’s scienter allegations do not come close to meeting the exacting pleading
`
`standards of the PSLRA. Because of the mismatched timing between when the challenged
`
`statements were made and the anticompetitive conduct described in the AC, Plaintiff is unable to
`
`plead with particularity that any Defendant had the requisite contemporaneous intent to deceive.
`
`Critically, Plaintiff fails to allege that the Pilgrim’s executives who made the supposed
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 25
`
`misstatements were engaged in any anticompetitive conduct—or even aware of any continuing
`
`wrongdoing—during the Class Period. The AC fails to state a claim against Mr. Sandri on this
`
`ground—there is not one allegation that Mr. Sandri had knowledge of any anticompetitive conduct
`
`at Pilgrim’s. Plaintiff’s generalized allegations that he should have known do not suffice under the
`
`PSLRA.
`
`Third, the AC is deficient because it fails to establish loss causation, i.e., a link between
`
`the “truth,” which Plaintiff claims was revealed when the DOJ announced the Initial Indictment
`
`on June 3, 2020, and the allegedly false and misleading statements. The announcement of the
`
`Initial Indictment does not relate to—let alone “correct”—any of the challenged statements. And
`
`the market was fully aware, beginning in 2016, that Pilgrim’s was the target of litigations and
`
`government investigations concerning Pilgrim’s alleged participation in an anticompetitive
`
`conspiracy, and the attendant risks that Pilgrim’s might suffer adverse consequences as a result of
`
`those proceedings. In every public filing during the Class Period, Pilgrim’s fully disclosed that
`
`there was ongoing litigation alleging that Pilgrim’s had been involved in antitrust violations.
`
`For these reasons, and those set forth below, the AC should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS2
`
`Pilgrim’s is one of the largest producers of chicken and pork products in the United States,
`
`the United Kingdom and Europe, Mexico, and approximately 110 other countries.3 Mr. Sandri has
`
`been the CEO of Pilgrim’s since June 2020; Messrs. Lovette and Penn each previously served as
`
`
`2 These facts are drawn from the AC, documents incorporated therein, a plea agreement that is publicly filed, and
`documents filed with the SEC, of which the Court may take judicial notice to establish market awareness and the fact
`of such filings. See Chipman v. Aspenbio Pharma, Inc., 2012 WL 4069353, at *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2012).
`3 See Ex. 1 (2019 10-K dated Feb. 21, 2020) at 1. All references to “Ex.” refer to Exhibits to the accompanying
`Declaration of Caroline Zalka. All citations to “¶ _” are to the AC.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 25
`
`CEO of Pilgrim’s from January 2011 to March 2019 and March 2019 to June 2020, respectively.
`
`¶¶ 14-16. Pilgrim’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol “PPC.” ¶ 13.
`
`During the Class Period of February 9, 2017 to June 2, 2020, Pilgrim’s regularly updated
`
`investors regarding its business, its financial performance, and the drivers behind that performance
`
`in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and earnings calls.
`
`Pilgrim’s generally attributed its strong financial results to a variety of factors, such as its leading
`
`market position in the chicken industry, broad product portfolio, and strong customer relationships.
`
`See, e.g., ¶ 142. Pilgrim’s also disclosed that its “key customer approach also promotes trust,
`
`enhances long-term relationships and strengthens [its] margin structure.” See, e.g., ¶ 194. In
`
`addition, Pilgrim’s disclosed that the chicken industry was “highly competitive” and that it
`
`“primarily compete[s] with other vertically integrated chicken companies.” See e.g., ¶ 124.
`
`Pilgrim’s regularly listed factors that made it competitive, including “price, product quality,
`
`product development, brand identification, breadth of product line and customer service.” See, e.g.,
`
`¶ 140. Between 2012 and 2017, Pilgrim’s net sales were approximately $54.5 billion, and Pilgrim’s
`
`served between 5,000 and 6,500 customers annually.4
`
`Plaintiff alleges that virtually every disclosure that Pilgrim’s or its executives made
`
`regarding Pilgrim’s business or the Company’s results, in 13 quarterly earnings calls and 17 public
`
`filings and press releases between February 9, 2017 and April 30, 2020, was materially misleading
`
`for the same reason: The statements purportedly concealed that Pilgrim’s financial results during
`
`the Class Period were driven primarily by an “illegal bid-rigging scheme orchestrated by
`
`
`4 See Ex. 2 (2012 10-K dated Feb. 15, 2013) at 4, 7; Ex. 3 (2013 10-K dated Feb. 21, 2014) at 4, 7; Ex. 4 (2014 10-K
`dated Feb. 12, 2015) at 2, 6; Ex. 5 (2015 10-K dated Feb. 12, 2016) at 1; Ex. 6 (2016 10-K dated Feb. 9, 2017) at 1;
`Ex. 7 (2017 10-K dated Feb. 16, 2018) at 1, 6.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 25
`
`Defendants and their co-conspirators.” See, e.g., ¶ 141.5 Plaintiff then alleges that the “truth”
`
`concerning the “true reason behind Pilgrim’s purportedly successful operations” was revealed to
`
`investors for the first time when the DOJ announced the Initial Indictment on June 3, 2020. ¶¶ 11,
`
`256. The announcement indicated that two Pilgrim’s executives (including Defendant Penn) had
`
`been indicted for conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chickens across the United States
`
`from “at least as early as 2012 and continuing through at least early 2017.”6 Following this
`
`announcement, Pilgrim’s stock price declined $2.58 per share, from a close of $20.87 on June 2,
`
`2020, to close at $18.29 on June 3, 2020. ¶ 257. Plaintiff’s Class Period ends the day before this
`
`announcement.
`
`The AC, however, relies heavily on two post-Class Period events that are not alleged as
`
`corrective disclosures or loss-causing events. First, on October 7, 2021, the DOJ issued the
`
`Superseding Indictment (superseding the Initial Indictment), which alleged that various
`
`individuals in the broiler chicken industry allegedly “sold and accepted payment for broiler
`
`chicken products . . . through until at least approximately early 2019.”7 The only conduct in the
`
`Superseding Indictment engaged in by a Pilgrim’s employee during the Class Period—a low-level,
`
`anonymous sales manager alleged to have participated in two phone calls with a competitor
`
`regarding a proposal for one chicken-buying cooperative, and the subsequent submission of a
`
`proposal to that cooperative—took place in September 2017. Second, on October 13, 2021,
`
`Pilgrim’s announced that it had entered into the Agreement with the DOJ “for restraint of
`
`
`5 See also ¶¶ 143, 145, 147, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 171, 173, 175, 177, 179, 181, 183, 186,
`188, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 201, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, 214.
`6 Ex. 8 (Indictment, U.S. v. Jayson Penn, 20-CR-00152, (D. Colo. Jun. 2, 2020), ECF No. 1) ¶ 41.
`7 Ex. 9 (Superseding Indictment, U.S. v. Jayson Penn, 20-CR-00152 (D. Colo. Oct. 6, 2020), ECF No. 101) ¶ 50.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 25
`
`competition that affected three contracts for the sale of chicken products to one customer in the
`
`United States.”8 As part of the Agreement, Pilgrim’s admitted that “at least one of its current and/or
`
`former employees . . . participated in a conspiracy with at least one competitor . . . to suppress and
`
`eliminate competition.”9 As set forth in the Agreement, which was made public on February 23,
`
`2021, this conduct took place from “at least as early as 2012 and continuing through at least early
`
`2017,” affected three contracts for the sale of chicken products to one customer, and impacted
`
`sales of $361 million.10 Pilgrim’s stock price increased after the announcements of the
`
`Superseding Indictment (2.77% increase)11 and the Agreement (5.68% increase).12
`
`Plaintiff claims that the allegations in the Initial Indictment solely and newly revealed the
`
`previously concealed information that Pilgrim’s had participated in an antitrust conspiracy, thus
`
`revealing the truth about Pilgrim’s financial results and operations. ¶ 256. But an allegation that
`
`Pilgrim’s had participated in an antitrust conspiracy was hardly new information. Throughout the
`
`Class Period, Pilgrim’s informed investors that a series of private lawsuits and government
`
`investigations had been commenced “alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair
`
`competition laws.” Specifically, Pilgrim’s SEC filings stated:
`
`• “Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, ten purported class action lawsuits
`were filed . . . against Pilgrim’s and 13 other producers[.] These actions are now styled [as]
`
`8 Ex. 10 (8-K dated Oct. 14, 2020).
`9 Ex. 11 (Plea Agreement, U.S. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Co., 20-CR-00330 (D. Colo. Feb. 23, 2021), ECF No. 58) ¶ 4.
`10 Id.; see also Ex. 10 (8-K dated Oct. 14, 2020).
`11 The Superseding Indictment was announced on October 7, 2020 during the trading day, and Pilgrim’s stock price
`closed at $15.96 per share, a $0.43 increase (or a 2.77% increase) from a close of $15.53 per share on October 6. See
`Ex. 12 (U.S. indicts six chicken industry officials over alleged price fixing, REUTERS (Oct. 7, 2020)); see also Ex. 13
`(Pilgrim’s Pride Co. Oct. 6-14, 2020 NASDAQ Real Time Price, Historical Data, YAHOO! FINANCE). The Court may
`take judicial notice of Pilgrim’s published stock price data “[b]ecause stock price data is capable of ready and accurate
`determination.” In re Molycorp, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2015 WL 1514712, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2015) (Moore, J.).
`12 The Agreement was announced before market open on October 14, 2020. See Ex. 14 (Pilgrim’s Pride strikes plea
`deal over U.S. chicken price-fixing charges, REUTERS (Oct. 14, 2020). Pilgrim’s stock price closed that day at $16.57
`per share, a $0.89 increase (or a 5.68% increase) from a close of $15.68 per share on October 13. See Ex. 13.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 25
`
`In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. The current operative complaints . . . allege,
`among other things, a conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and fix, increase,
`maintain, and stabilize the prices of broiler chickens in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws
`from the period of January 2008 to the present.”13
`
`• “On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan . . . filed a class action complaint . . . against
`Pilgrim’s and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges . . . that Pilgrim’s SEC
`filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by
`Pilgrim’s failure to disclose that (i) the company colluded with several of its industry peers
`to fix prices in the broiler chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
`Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) Pilgrim’s
`revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct[.]”14
`
`• “On March 9, 2017, a stockholder derivative action styled as DiSalvio v. Lovette . . . was
`brought against all of the Company’s directors and its Chief Financial Officer, Fabio Sandri
`. . . alleg[ing], among other things, that the named defendants breached their fiduciary
`duties by failing to prevent the Company and its officers from engaging in an antitrust
`conspiracy as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, and issuing false
`and misleading statements as alleged in the Hogan class action litigation.”15
`
`• “On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re
`Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months . . . . On July 1, 2019, the
`DOJ issued a subpoena to PPC in connection with its investigation. PPC is currently in the
`process of complying with the subpoena.”16
`
`Moreover, in every Pilgrim’s Form 10-K filed during the Class Period, Pilgrim’s warned
`
`the market that it faced substantial risks stemming from these proceedings, including that
`
`unfavorable outcomes “could result [in] material damages, which could adversely affect
`
`[Pilgrim’s] financial condition and results of operations.”17
`
`Even before the Class Period, Pilgrim’s involvement in these proceedings was widely
`
`reported in the news media. For example, on September 6, 2016, CNBC published an article about
`
`
`13 See, e.g., Ex. 6 (2016 10-K dated Feb. 9, 2017) at 19.
`14 Id.
`15 See, e.g., Ex. 7 (2017 10-K dated Feb. 16, 2018) at 23.
`16 See, e.g., Ex. 1 (2019 10-K dated Feb. 21, 2020) at 17.
`17 See, e.g., Ex. 15 (2018 10-K dated Feb. 14, 2019) at 16.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 25
`
`the Broiler Chicken lawsuit.18 This reporting continued well into the Class Period. On June 25,
`
`2019, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, and Reuters each reported that the DOJ
`
`had launched a criminal investigation into allegations that poultry producers, including Pilgrim’s,
`
`colluded to keep prices artificially high.19
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF RELATED ACTION
`
`On October 20, 2016, a putative class action, Hogan v. Pilgrim’s Pride, was filed in this
`
`Court on behalf of purchasers and sellers of Pilgrim’s stock between February 2014 and October
`
`2016, premised on related allegations that Pilgrim’s SEC filings contained statements that were
`
`rendered materially false and misleading by Pilgrim’s failure to disclose its alleged participation
`
`in the same conspiracy alleged in this case.20 This related action was originally dismissed on March
`
`14, 2018,21 for failure to plead falsity under the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standard. The
`
`Hogan plaintiff amended his complaint on June 8, 2020, following the Initial Indictment, and
`
`incorporated many of the same allegations relating to the conspiracy between 2012 and 2017. That
`
`complaint was dismissed on April 19, 2021 as time-barred under the applicable statue of repose
`
`and for lack of standing.22 On May 17, 2021, the Hogan plaintiff filed a motion for amended
`
`judgment under Rule 59(e), which is currently pending.
`
`
`18 Ex. 16 (Lawsuit Alleges There’s Been a Chicken Price Conspiracy, CNBC (Sept. 6, 2016)).
`19 See Ex. 17 (Justice Department Investigates Chicken Industry, WALL ST. J. (June 25, 2019)); Ex. 18 (Why Chicken
`Producers Are Under Investigation for Price Fixing, NEW YORK TIMES (June 25, 2019)); Ex. 19 (Justice Department
`Investigates Chicken Industry For Price Collusion, FORBES (June 25, 2019)); Ex. 20 (U.S. launches criminal probe
`into alleged chicken price fixing by Tyson, rivals, REUTERS (June 25, 2019)).
`20 See Class Action Compl., Hogan v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp, 16-CV-02611 (“Hogan”), 2016 WL 6274456 (D. Colo.
`Oct. 20, 2016), ECF No. 1.
`21 See Hogan, 2018 WL 1316979 (D. Colo. Mar. 14, 2018).
`22 See Hogan, 2021 WL 1534602 (D. Colo. Apr. 19, 2021).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 25
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A Section 10(b) plaintiff “bears a heavy burden at the pleading stage.” In re Level 3
`
`Commc’ns, Inc. Sec. Litig., 667 F.3d 1331, 1333 (10th Cir. 2012). To state a claim for securities
`
`fraud, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant made a materially misleading statement or
`
`omission; (2) a connection with the purchase or sale of securities; (3) scienter; (4) reliance on the
`
`misleading statement or omission; and (5) loss causation, a causal connection between the
`
`purported fraudulent acts and the plaintiff’s subsequent loss. See id. (citing Adams v. Kinder-
`
`Morgan, Inc., 340 F.3d 1083, 1095 (10th Cir. 2003); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336,
`
`345, 347-48 (2005). Moreover, under the PSLRA and Rule 9(b), a plaintiff must “specify each
`
`statement alleged to have been misleading [and] the reason or reasons why the statement is
`
`misleading” and must “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
`
`defendant acted with the required state of mind.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(b)(1), (2). In other words,
`
`plaintiff must plead with particularity “the who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged
`
`securities fraud with particularity. See Hogan, 2018 WL 1316979, at *5.
`
`Plaintiff here seeks to manufacture a securities fraud claim—subject to the PSLRA’s
`
`stringent pleading standards—based upon the antitrust allegations in the Initial Indictment and the
`
`conduct described in the Agreement. But a securities law violation does not automatically follow
`
`from an antitrust violation (or, in the case of the Initial Indictment, an alleged antitrust violation).
`
`Indeed, a plaintiff cannot state a Section 10(b) claim merely by identifying a violation of the
`
`antitrust laws; such an end-run around the PSLRA runs afoul of the most basic tenets of the
`
`securities laws. Rather, to withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain particularized
`
`facts supporting each element of a securities claim—elements that are entirely distinct from those
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 25
`
`that may establish a violation of the antitrust laws. As set forth below, the AC fails to adequately
`
`plead three independent elements of a Section 10(b) claim—falsity, scienter, and loss causation.
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed To Plead Particularized Facts Demonstrating an Actionable
`Material Misstatement or Omission
`
`
`
`The AC challenges dozens of statements concerning the drivers of Pilgrim’s overall
`
`financial results and the conduct of its business during the Class Period. ¶¶ 135-214. Plaintiff
`
`claims that each of these statements is false or misleading for a single reason: the failure to disclose
`
`an “illegal bid-rigging scheme orchestrated by Defendants.” See, e.g., ¶ 150. But absent
`
`particularized allegations of fact demonstrating the contemporaneous falsity of each specific
`
`challenged statement, which are lacking here, Plaintiff’s securities fraud claim cannot survive.
`
`First, to state a claim under Section 10(b), Plaintiff must plead particularized facts
`
`demonstrating “why [each] disputed statement was untrue or misleading when made.” Grossman
`
`v. Novell, Inc., 120 F.3d 1112, 1124 (10th Cir. 1997). And as this Court already held, where a
`
`plaintiff’s “central allegation” is that defendants “failed to disclose an underlying antitrust
`
`conspiracy, plaintiff must plead with particularity the facts that establish the existence of the
`
`antitrust conspiracy” at the time of the challenged statements. Hogan, 2018 WL 1316979, at *5
`
`(D. Colo. Mar. 14, 2018). Put differently, Plaintiff must “establish—at a bare minimum—that the
`
`underlying fraud took place during the time period covered by the purportedly false public
`
`statements.” In re PetroChina Co. Ltd. Sec. Litig., 120 F. Supp. 3d 340, 357-58 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
`
`The AC does not meet this requirement, failing to allege the existence of an antitrust
`
`conspiracy that took place during the Class Period with the requisite particularity. For the most
`
`part, Plaintiff’s allegations entail conduct that pre-dated the statements challenged in the AC,
`
`contending that, years before the Class Period, Pilgrim’s executives engaged in a conspiracy with
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 25
`
`several competitors to raise the price of broiler chickens by rigging bids. ¶¶ 70-112. But this
`
`conduct has “nothing to do with [the] Class Period” and is “temporally and logically insufficient”
`
`to show that Pilgrim’s statements concerning the drivers of its quarterly financial performance or
`
`the competitiveness of the chicken industry23 were contemporaneously false when made,
`
`especially where “there is scant else from which to infer that [the misconduct] was the company’s
`
`practice at any pertinent [class period] time.” Emps. Ret. Sys. of Providence v. Embraer S.A., 2018
`
`WL 1725574, at *4-11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2018) (finding “temporally and logically insufficient”
`
`misstatement allegations premised on “pre-Class Period claims and findings of misconduct”); In
`
`re Lululemon Sec. Litig., 14 F. Supp. 3d 553, 580 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (allegations concerning quality
`
`testing issues which “occurred well before the Class Period” did not render misleading company’s
`
`statements regarding its quality testing made during class period).24
`
`The sole instance of anticompetitive conduct that the AC describes as occurring during the
`
`Class Period—two conversations that a low-level Pilgrim’s employee allegedly had with a Claxton
`
`employee concerning bids for potential price reductions for the 2018 and 2019 supply of chicken
`
`to one customer, and the submission of a bid in September 2017 (see ¶¶ 122-23)—are insufficient
`
`to state a securities fraud claim. This conduct lacks any temporal or other connection to the
`
`
`23 Plaintiff challenges Pilgrim’s description of the chicken industry as “highly competitive,” including that “the
`competitive factors” in the industry include “price, product quality, product development, brand identification, breadth
`of product line and customer service.” See ¶¶ 140, 146, 169, 203. Plaintiff similarly challenges Pilgrim’s descriptions
`of the factors in the broader “foodservice market” as including “consistent quality, product development, service and
`price.” Id. But these statements concern the entire chicken and food industries, not Pilgrim’s operations or drivers of
`its financial performance, and there are no particularized factual allegations in the AC demonstrating that these broader
`statements concerning the industry as a whole were contemporaneously false when made.
`24 Even when Plaintiff points to conduct occurring just prior to the Class Period—a Pilgrim’s employee (Roger Austin)
`discussing pricing and negotiations for a key customer with one of its competitors (¶¶ 113-16), as alleged in the Initial
`Indictment—the requisite particularity is notably absent, as Pilgrim’s is not alleged to have used any information
`derived from this discussion to actually rig bids or fix prices during the Class Period.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 25
`
`challenged statements, which concern the drivers of Pilgrim’s financial results. Critically, Plaintiff
`
`does not quantify the impact of such conduct on Pilgrim’s financials or sales, identify which of
`
`Pilgrim’s statements were rendered false by the conduct and how, or even allege that the proposed
`
`price reductions were formalized or entered into—much less how they impacted Pilgrim’s
`
`financial performance during the Class Period. The lone act that Plaintiff describes thus falls far
`
`short of pleading the requisite “who, what, when, where, and how” required to state a Section 10(b)
`
`claim premised on the contemporaneous drivers of Pilgrim’s financial results. See Hogan, 2018
`
`WL 1316979, at *5.
`
`Second, Plaintiff fails to plead, consistent with the PSLRA, that Pilgrim’s non-disclosure
`
`of the antitrust conspiracy alleged in the AC actually rendered the challenged statements
`
`misleading. The AC is bereft of any particularized allegations as to how the anticompetitive
`
`conduct described in the Agreement, Indictment, or Superseding Indictment actually impacted
`
`Pilgrim’s business or financial results in a manner that would have rendered Pilgrim’s statements
`
`relating thereto false. Indeed, Plaintiff does not even attempt to quantify the impact of this
`
`conduct—the vast majority of which took place before the statements were made—on any specific
`
`Pilgrim’s financial metric, such as revenue or margin figures. Nor does Plaintiff attempt to explain
`
`(much less plead with particularity) what portion of Pilgrim’s results during the Class Period were
`
`purportedly driven by the antitrust conspiracy rather than the factors the Company disclosed. At
`
`most, Plaintiff alleges a miniscule blip on Pilgrim’s financials that almost entirely predates the
`
`Class Period—the Agreement involved one Pilgrim’s customer out of several thousand, and
`
`affected sales of chicken products totaling $361 million between 2012 and 2017,25 which
`
`
`25 See Ex. 11 (Agreement) ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01966-RM-MEH Document 63 Filed 07/19/21 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 25
`
`constitutes a mere 0.66% of Pilgrim’s net sales during that same time period.26 Plaintiff’s failure
`
`to provide particularized facts as to how Defendants’ statements were rendered false and
`
`misleading is fatal to its claims. See Heck v. Orion Grp. Hldgs., Inc., 468 F. Supp. 3d 828, 849
`
`(S.D. Tex. 2020) (dismissing for “fail[ure] to explain why or in what particulars” statements about
`
`company’s financial results, treatment of receivables, doubtful accounts, project estimates,
`
`goodwill, ICFR, or SOX certifications were inaccurate); In re Exodus Commc’ns, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`
`2005 WL 1869289, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2005) (no falsity where plaintiff did not quantify the
`
`amount by which the company’s revenue recognition practices allegedly overstated revenues).
`
`Third, it is well established that “[d]isclosure is not a rite of confession, and companies do
`
`not have a duty to disclose uncharged, unadjudicated wrongdoing” under the securities laws. See
`
`City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG, 752 F.3d 173, 184 (2d Cir. 2014).
`
`At no point between the start of the Class Period and April 30, 2020 (the date of the last alleged
`
`misstatement) had Pilgrim’s or any of its executives been charged with, or adjudicated to have
`
`been engaged in, any anticompetitive conduct. Yet Plaintiff claims that Defendants should have
`
`punctuated each disclosure concerning Pilgrim’s business or financial results with a confession
`
`that the Company was engaged in an illegal antitrust conspiracy. But the securities laws impose
`
`no such obligation upon a company; it need not engage in self-flagellation. See id. at 173 (company
`
`had no obligation to disclose involvement in ongoing tax evasion scheme under Section 11 of the
`
`’34 Act where company “disclos[ed] its involvement in multiple legal proceedings and
`
`government investigations” concerning the scheme). Indeed, “joining a price-fixing conspiracy is
`
`a criminal offense, an

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket