IBJNews

Arcadia in danger of stock exchange delisting

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Arcadia Resources Inc. has been notified by NYSE Amex Equities Exchange that its stock price is too low to be trading on the exchange.

The Indianapolis-based health care company said on Friday that the exchange advised it to undertake a reverse stock split to avoid delisting and gave the company until Oct. 4 to complete the split.

“The company continues to monitor the trading price of its common stock and is considering its options to comply with [the standards],” Arcadia said in a press release.

Shares of Arcadia opened Monday morning priced at 15 cents each. The stock has closed at an average price of less than 20 cents over a consecutive 30-day trading period, which triggered the warning.

The stock hasn’t traded at 20 cents or above since Feb. 9. The stock reached a 52-week high of 83 cents per share last April 21.

A delsiting would relegate Arcadia shares to penny-stock status on the over-the-counter bulletin board or the pink sheets. Once that happens, shares are harder to buy and sell.

Arcadia offers pharmacy services, in addition to providing home health care staffing and selling medical equipment by catalog. Its flagship pharmacy product is DailyMed, which packages dosages of prescription medicines into individual packets labeled with the time of day they are to be taken.

For its most recent fiscal quarter, which ended Dec. 31, Arcadia lost $2.3 million, or 1 cent per share, on revenue of $26.2 million. That compares to a loss of $3.2 million, or 2 cents per share, on revenue of $25.7 million for the same quarter in 2009.

In May 2010, the company announced that it planned to add 930 jobs at its northeast-side headquarters by 2013.

Arcadia agreed in 2007 to move from Southfield, Mich., to Indianapolis and create 400 jobs over two years in exchange for about $6 million in economic development incentives.

Arcadia is the second Indianapolis-based company within the past six months to be threatened with delisting.

On Nov. 1, NASDAQ notified Emmis Communications Corp. that it no longer was in compliance with an exchange rule that requires members to carry a minimum stock price of $1. Company shares had closed below $1 per share for 30 consecutive business days, triggering the notice.

But in February, shares closed above the necessary threshold of $1 each for 10 consecutive business days, likely enabling Emmis to avoid delisting.

Its shares are currently trading at $1.04 each.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT