IBJNews

Celadon proposes merger with rival USA Truck

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Celadon Group Inc. has reported buying a 6.3 percent stake in USA Truck Inc. and proposing talks on a possible merger with the like-minded truckload carrier.

No discussions have been held so far with Van Buren, Ark.-based USA Truck, Celadon said Tuesday in a regulatory filing. Indianapolis-based Celadon requested a meeting to discuss an “association” between the two companies including a potential combination, according to the filing.

In trading Tuesday morning, USA Truck climbed 19 percent to $9.77 at 11:27 a.m. in New York after gaining as much as 24 percent, the largest intraday advance since July 2008. Celadon gained 4.5 percent to $9.72.

Acquisitions among transportation companies are more likely after “sharp declines” in equity prices, Jason Seidl, a New York-based analyst with Dahlman Rose & Co., wrote in a note last week. He listed Celadon among companies with “an external growth approach,” along with Knight Transportation Inc. and CH Robinson Worldwide Inc.

Celadon and USA Truck are both so-called truckload carriers, delivering goods for a single customer in each trailer. Celadon has a market value of about $219 million, more than double USA Truck’s $101 million, Bloomberg data shows.

USA Truck was “trading at 55 percent of book,” Celadon Chief Operating Officer Paul Will said by telephone. “That gave us the opportunity to hopefully have a dialogue with management to see if there’s some opportunity between the two companies.”

Celadon paid $4.66 million including commissions for its stake, becoming USA Truck’s seventh-biggest investor, according to Bloomberg data. Celadon posted revenue of $557 million in the fiscal year through June 2011, while USA Truck had sales of $504 million in the same period.

USA Truck specializes in commodities, according to its website. Chief Financial Officer Darron Ming didn’t immediately respond to a voice mail seeking comment.

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT