Lawsuit alleges SEC investigation, financial cover-up at Celadon

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Celadon Group Inc. investor has filed a lawsuit alleging that the Indianapolis-based trucking company is misleading shareholders about its financial status and covering up a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the company.

Denis Chavez filed the civil suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. The defendants named in the suit include Celadon and two of the transportation company’s executives: CEO and President Paul Will and Chief Financial Officer Bobby Peavler.

Chavez is asking that the court certify the suit as a class-action case on behalf of investors who acquired Celadon stock between Dec. 30 and April 18.

In the court filing, Chavez says he was harmed financially because he purchased Celadon stock at “artificially inflated prices.” The company’s stock prices declined following two research reports published this month by Celadon short-seller Prescience Point LLC.

Chavez said he purchased 188 shares of Celadon on June 30, 2016, for $8.20 per share, and he purchased another 174 shares on March 24 for $6.83 per share. He sold 362 shares on April 13 for $4.61 per share.

Celadon executive Will told IBJ on Thursday that the company is aware of the suit.

“We’re reviewing it and engaging counsel to advise us,” Will said, noting that the suit is based on reports from short-sellers, who make money when a company’s share price drops.

Will said he’s not aware of any current SEC investigations of the company. “We have not been notified by the SEC," he said.

The SEC declined to respond to an IBJ query about whether it is investigating Celadon.

Chavez’ suit quotes at length from the Prescience Point reports, which focus on a joint venture between Celadon and Element Transportation LLC. The joint venture focuses on truck leasing and includes assets formerly held by Celadon, Element and a third party, 19th Capital.

According to a Celadon release issued Dec. 30, Celadon contributed cash and lease equipment worth $100 million in exchange for 49.99 percent equity in the joint venture. Citing a Prescience Point report, Chavez’ lawsuit says Celadon misrepresented its actual investment through "accounting gimmicks."

Prescience outlined its argument in a report issued April 5. On that same day, shares of Celadon dropped from $6.25 to $5.40, which the suit says is “directly attributable” to the Prescience report.

Chavez’ suit also cites a separate Prescience report published Wednesday that alleges Celadon is under SEC investigation.

In that report, Prescience says it made a Freedom of Information request asking the SEC for investigative records concerning Celadon dating back to Jan. 1, 2013. The SEC declined this request, Prescience said, on the grounds that releasing the records could “reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings.”

Celadon’s stock price dropped again after the release of this report, Chavez’s suit says. Celadon’s closing price on Tuesday was $4.40 per share, the suit says, and that fell to $3.85 as of 1 p.m. Wednesday. (Shares of the company were trading at $4.20 as of midday Thursday.)

Chavez is asking the court to certify his action as a class-action suit. He also requests that the court order the defendants to pay compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the plaintiffs’ costs and fees. The suit does not name a specific dollar amount that Chavez is seeking.

Celadon has not yet filed a legal response to the suit.

This is not the first time Celadon has faced heat for its financial disclosures. In October, the investing site Seeking Alpha published a report in which author Jay Yoon raised a number of questions about Celadon’s financial reporting.

Celadon responded to Yoon’s queries a week later in a letter which the company also shared as an SEC filing. In its response, Celadon told Yoon that “the article contained a number of errors and misplaced assumptions” with which the company disagreed.


Post a comment to this story

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.