SEC Company Response from CELADON GROUP INC (CIK 0000865941) — Jun 2, 2005
CELADON GROUP INC (CIK 0000865941)
Date: June 2, 2005 · CIK: 0000865941 · Accession: 0001008886-05-000139
AI Filing Summary & Sentiment
Referenced dates: March 21, 2005
Show Raw Text
CORRESP
1
filename1.htm
SEC Letter 2 June 2005
June 2,
2005
Mr. David
R. Humphrey
Mail
Stop0305
Securities
and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth
Street
Washington,
D.C. 20549
Re:
Celadon
Group, Inc.
Annual
Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended June 30,
2004
File
No. 0-23192
Dear Mr.
Humphrey:
On behalf
of Celadon Group, Inc. (the “Company”), I have enclosed our response to your
request for supplemental information in your letter dated March 21,
2005.
The
following are the questions from the letter sent March 21, 2005 and the
Company’s response to the staff’s comments, directly beneath:
Item
7: Management’s Discussion and Analysis - Overview and Results of
Operations, pages 11-13
1.
Comment:
See
the last paragraph under this heading (and also under Results of
Operations - the pretax margin paragraph discussion) whereby you disclose
what pre-tax income would have been excluding the impact of certain items.
Please note that you may discuss the material items considered to have an
impact on you pre-tax income; however, it is not appropriate to provide a
non-GAAP measure, such as pre-tax income that excludes the impact on these
items. We note you have incurred similar charges in the past and there is
no demonstration that such charges will not continue in the near future.
Please revise in future filings to exclude the non-GAAP financial measure.
Reference is made to Question Nos. 8 and 9 of the Staff’s “Frequently
Asked Questions Regarding the Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures,” issued
June 13, 2003.
Response:
The Company has reviewed Question Nos. 8 and 9 of the Staff’s “Frequently
Asked Questions Regarding the Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures,” issued
June 13, 2003 and has concluded that all non-GAAP financial measures will
be excluded from all future filings or appropriate reconciliations
and explanations will accompany such financial measures in future filings.
Item
7: Management’s Discussion and Analysis - Results of
Operations, pages 13-17
Fiscal
year ended June 30, 2004, compared with fiscal year ended June 30,
2003
2.
Comment:
See the paragraph discussion of depreciation and amortization, and the
fiscal 2004 impairment charge of $9.8 million. Expand to describe how and
when you plan to dispose of the 48-foot trailers. Discuss how the
impairment charge was determined for the approximately 1,600 trailers and
whether the analysis was done at the reporting unit level (i.e.,
Transportation segment) or some other unit grouping or an individual
trailer by trailer basis. We refer you to SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for
the Impairment of Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.” Also, indicate the
amount, if any, of the impairment charge that includes any residual value
guarantee obligation. Discuss whether or not you have ordered the
approximately 1,300 new replacement trailers, and whether the 600 trailers
on order at June 30, 2004, as disclosed under Liquidity and Capital
Resources, are included within the 1,300 trailers. Also, disclose that the
approximately 1,600 trailers have been reflected in your balance sheet as
held for sale at a write-down value of $0.4 million, as indicated in Note
3 to the audited financial statements.
Response:
The Company has reviewed SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” and has concluded that the accounting
treatment for this transaction was proper; however, a more detailed
discussion of the transaction should and will be incorporated into future
filings. All but $0.4 million of the 48-foot trailers were disposed of in
the nine-month period ending June 30, 2004 through equipment auctions and
sales to equipment brokers, other trucking companies and equipment
dealers. The remaining unsold trailers are included in the June 30, 2004
balance sheet as held for sale at a write-down value of $0.4 million. The
impairment charge was determined on a trailer by trailer basis after
reviewing the then prevailing market prices for like equipment. The
impairment charge does not include any residual value guarantee
obligation. The 1,300 new replacement trailers, which did not include the
600 trailers on order at June 30, 2004 (as disclosed under the Liquidity
and Capital Resources), were ordered prior to June 30,
2004.
Item
7: Management’s Discussion and Analysis - Liquidity and
Capital Resources, pages 17-19
Table
of Contractual Obligations
3.
Comment:
We believe you should include scheduled interest payments in the table or,
in the alternative, include additional disclosure regarding interest
payments in a footnote to the table. See Section IV.A of FR-72 for
guidance.
Response:
The Company has reviewed Section IV.A of FR-72 and agrees that scheduled
interest payments should and will be incorporated into future filings in
the table or additional disclosure regarding interest payments will be
included in a footnote to the table.
In
addition to the Company’s responses to the SEC staff comments above, the Company
would like to acknowledge in writing, per the request of the SEC staff, the
following:
·
the
Company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in
the Form 10-K filings;
·
the
SEC staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments
do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the
filing; and
·
the
Company may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding
initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities
laws of the United States.
Should
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (317)
972-7014.
Sincerely,
/s/ Paul
A. Will
Paul A.
Will
Executive
Vice President
Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer