IBJNews

Arcadia adds Goldsmith to board, seeks $11M in offering

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Arcadia Resources Inc. has appointed former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith to its board of directors, the locally based health care company announced Monday morning.

Goldsmith, who served as mayor from 1992 to 2000, is a professor in the American Government Program at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He also is the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, a major grant maker that supports national and community services programs.

Goldsmith will replace Tres Lund, a major Arcadia shareholder who resigned from the board after serving on it since 2007. 

In addition Monday morning, Arcadia said it plans to sell nearly 16 million shares of stock in a registered direct offering that will raise $11.1 million.

Arcadia, which operates health care staffing businesses and a pharmaceutical management service, has commitments to sell the shares to institutional investors, which it did not name in its announcement. The company needed more cash, as its reserves had dwindled to $517,000 at the end of the second quarter, down from $2.4 million a year earlier.

The investors will pay 70 cents for each unit, which consists of one share of common stock as well as a warrant to purchase 0.45 shares as early as six months from now. The warrants are exercisable at a price of 95 cents per share.

Arcadia’s stock price closed Friday at 75 cents per share. The value of the stock has tripled in the last year as Arcadia’s losses have narrowed. However, the company’s share price has fallen 35 percent from its high set in mid-September.

The new shares offered, which totaled 15,857,141, represent 9.8 percent of Arcadia’s total shares outstanding.

And the company could sell even more shares. According to a prospectus Arcadia filed Friday with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, it may “from time to time” sell new shares up to a limit of 20 million.

 

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. JK, Thanks for your comments. I suppose your question of whether or not a more expensive but potentially better MRI quality is worth it depends upon whom you ask. If a radiologist misses a significant problem because of imaging quality issues, then maybe the extra cost would have been worth it. That is something a patient has to decide for him/herself. That being said, I too want more fair and competitive pricing and transparency from hospitals!

  2. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  3. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  4. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  5. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

ADVERTISEMENT