August 13, 2020

Volume X, Number 226

August 13, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 12, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 11, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 10, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Second Circuit Class Action Litigation | Winter 2019/2020

Gamm v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 944 F.3d 455 (2d Cir. 2019)

Second Circuit holds that if a securities class action is based on claim that public statements were misleading because defendant did not disclose illegal activity, plaintiffs are required to plead the underlying illegal activity with particularity.

The complaint alleged that Sanderson Farms and several other large chicken producers began colluding to inflate the price of chicken by coordinating supply reductions and manipulating a chicken price index. Sanderson Farms allegedly planned the antitrust conspiracy with its competitors during industry meetings and conferences. The conspiracy was also supposedly facilitated at investor conferences organized by Wall Street analysts and attended by Sanderson Farms and its competitors. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of purchasers of Sanderson Farms shares, alleged that the failure to disclose this antitrust conspiracy rendered various statements issued by Sanderson Farms during the class period false and misleading.

On appeal, plaintiffs acknowledged that allegations of misstatements and omissions in support of a securities fraud claim must be pleaded with particularity, but argued that the allegations of the facts of the underlying antitrust conspiracy must merely meet the Rule 8 plausibility standard. The Second Circuit disagreed, holding that because plaintiffs were required to plead with particularity sufficient facts to support their contention that Sanderson Farms’ financial disclosures were misleading, they necessarily were required to state the facts of the underlying anticompetitive conduct with particularity. Applying this standard, the Second Circuit found that, while the complaint alleged Sanderson engaged in anticompetitive conduct, there was “virtually no explanation as to how the collusive conduct occurred, and whether and how it affected trade.” Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal.

Please see news from other circuits here: Class Action Litigation Newsletter | Winter 2019/2020

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved. National Law Review, Volume X, Number 44


About this Author

Robert Herrington, Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, Los Angeles, Cybersecurity Litigation Attorney

Robert J. Herrington is an attorney in firm's Products Liability & Mass Torts Practice. He focuses his practice on defending consumer products companies in complex, multi-party litigation, including class actions, government enforcement litigation, product defect litigation and mass torts. Rob represents companies in a variety of industries, including apparel and footwear, retail, emerging technologies, consumer electronics, video game, telecommunications, advertising and publicity, online retailing, food and beverage, nutritional supplements, personal care products...

Stephen L. Saxl Class Action Attorney Greenberg Traurig

Stephen L. Saxl is the Co-Chair of the Class Action Litigation Group. He concentrates his practice on defending class actions and complex litigation matters in federal court and New York State courts. His class action experience includes cases in the securities, retail, telecommunications, publishing, insurance, Internet and tobacco industries. He has defended clients against statutory and common law claims including fraud, unfair trade practices, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), breach of contract and price-fixing.


  • Class actions
  • Complex civil litigation
  • Securities and broker-dealer litigation
  • Commercial litigation
  • Consumer litigation
  • Antitrust
  • Media
  • Privacy litigation
  • Product liability