Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Ascena Retail, Pyxus International, and Ra Medical and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, June 17, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Ascena Retail, Pyxus International, and Ra Medical.  Stockholders have until the deadlines listed below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Ascena Retail Group (ASNA)

Class Period:  September 16, 2015 – June 8, 2017

Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  August 6, 2019

The complaint charges Ascena and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Ascena is a leading national specialty retailer of apparel for women and teen girls.  In August 2015, Ascena completed the acquisition of Ann Inc. (“Ann”), the parent company of Ann Taylor and LOFT (the “Ann Acquisition”).

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Ascena’s business and operations.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that the Ann Acquisition was a complete disaster for the Company as Ann’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to the public; that, in order to mask the true condition of Ann, defendants improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of Ann’s goodwill and, as a result, Ascena’s reported income and assets were materially overstated and the Company’s financial results were not prepared in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); and that many of the brands acquired in the Ann Acquisition were in steep decline and were also materially overvalued on Ascena’s Class Period financial statements.  As a result of this information being withheld from the market, the price of Ascena common stock was artificially inflated to more than $14 per share during the Class Period.

On May 17, 2017, Ascena announced that it was revising its third quarter and full year 2017 sales and earnings outlook, due to “a period of unprecedented secular change that is disruptive to traditional business models,” and that the Company would be taking an impairment charge.  On this news, the price of Ascena stock dropped from $2.82 per share to $2.06 per share, a decline of 26%.  Then on June 8, 2017, Ascena announced its third quarter 2017 financial results, reporting a GAAP loss of $5.29 per diluted share compared to net earnings of $0.08 per diluted share in the prior year period.  The loss included a non-cash pre-tax impairment charge of $1.324 billion (after tax impact of $5.22 per diluted share) to write down a portion of the Company’s goodwill and other intangible assets.

To learn more about the Ascena class action go to: http://bespc.com/asna/.

Pyxus International, Inc. (PYX)

Class Period:  June 7, 2018 – November 8, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  August 6, 2019

On November 8, 2018, the company 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 its financial statements filed with the SEC 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 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.