Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Blue LLP File Securities Class Action on Behalf of Pyxus International, Inc. (PYX) Investors

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Blue LLP have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, captioned Jones v. Pyxus International, Inc. et al., No. 5:19-cv-234, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Pyxus International, Inc. (NYSE: PYX) securities between June 7, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The lawsuit alleges the following (reprinted from https://www.glancylaw.com/cases-application/case-information/pyxus-international-inc/):

On November 8, 2018, Pyxus disclosed that sales declined approximately 12% year-over-year due to the timing of shipments and the larger crop last year in South America.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $7.01, or nearly 28%, to close at $18.26 on November 8, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On November 9, 2018, the SEC announced that the Company had settled charges that it had materially misstated financial statements with the Commission from at least 2011 through the second quarter of 2015 due to improper and insufficient accounting, processes, and control activities for inventory, deferred crop costs, and revenue transactions in Africa.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.88, or nearly 16%, to close at $15.38 on November 9, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action 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 failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing longer shipping cycles; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s financial results would be materially affected; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal control over financial reporting; (4) that the Company’s accounting policies were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.