According to the law firm press release, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products to retailers, distributors, and foodservice operators in the United States, Mexico, and Puerto Rico.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pilgrim’s Pride systematically colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the market for broiler chickens (i.e., chickens raised specifically for meat production); (ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii) consequently, Pilgrim’s Pride’s revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Pilgrim’s Pride’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on May 11, 2017. On June 12, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint. On March 14, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 11. On November 9, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, but granted Plaintiff's unopposed request for leave to amend. On June 8, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended Complaint on July 31. On April 16, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the Court's Dismissal Order on December 28.

On July 13, 2023, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. On September 25, Plaintiff filed a brief in support the second Motion to Dismiss. On December 26, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the second Motion to Dismiss. One of the individual Defendants was dismissed from the case with prejudice. Plaintiff was given leave to file a third amended Complaint.

Lead Plaintiff filed a third amended Complaint on January 5, 2024.