October 31, 2019 - The case was voluntarily dismissed.

June 7, 2019 - An investor in shares of Pyxus International, Inc. (NYSE: PYX) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Pyxus International, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between June 7, 2018 and November 8, 2018.

Morrisville, NC based Pyxus International, Inc., an agricultural company, engages in the provision of various agricultural products, ingredients, and services to businesses and customers. Pyxus International, Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from over $1.71 billion for the 12 months period that ended on March 31, 2017 to over $1.84 billion for the 12 months period that ended on March 31 , 2018 and that the Net Loss of $62.92 million turned into a Net Income of $52.43 million over those respective time periods.

On November 8, 2018, Pyxus International, Inc 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 November 9, 2018, the SEC announced that Pyxus International, Inc 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. Shares of Pyxus International, Inc. (NYSE: PYX) declined from $45.85 per share in October 2018 to as low as $11.53 per share in late December 2018.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Pyxus International, Inc. (NYSE: PYX) common shares between June 7, 2018 and November 8, 2018, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.

More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between June 7, 2018 and November 8, 2018, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company was experiencing longer shipping cycles, that, as a result, the Company’s financial results would be materially affected, that the Company lacked adequate internal control over financial reporting, that the Company’s accounting policies were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny, and 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.