LANDSTAR SYSTEM INC - Quarter Report: 2009 June (Form 10-Q)
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One) | ||
x
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended June 27, 2009
OR
o
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission File Number: 0-21238
LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
06-1313069 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
13410 Sutton Park Drive South, Jacksonville, Florida
(Address of principal executive offices)
32224
(Zip Code)
(904) 398-9400
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
N/A
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)
(Address of principal executive offices)
32224
(Zip Code)
(904) 398-9400
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
N/A
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days:
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant
to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit and post such files):
Yes o No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large
accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer þ | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | ||||
Smaller reporting company o |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ
The number of shares of the registrants common stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding
as of the close of business on July 17, 2009 was 51,312,580.
Index
PART I Financial Information |
||||||||
Item 1. | ||||||||
Page 3 | ||||||||
Page 4 | ||||||||
Page 5 | ||||||||
Page 6 | ||||||||
Page 7 | ||||||||
Item 2. | Page 11 | |||||||
Item 3. | Page 19 | |||||||
Item 4. | Page 20 | |||||||
PART II Other Information |
||||||||
Item 1. | Page 20 | |||||||
Item 1A. | Page 21 | |||||||
Item 2. | Page 22 | |||||||
Item 4. | Page 22 | |||||||
Item 6. | Page 23 | |||||||
Signatures | Page 25 | |||||||
EX-31.1 | ||||||||
EX-31.2 | ||||||||
EX-32.1 | ||||||||
EX-32.2 |
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements
The interim consolidated financial statements contained herein reflect all adjustments (all of
a normal, recurring nature) which, in the opinion of management, are necessary for a fair statement
of the financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and changes in shareholders equity
for the periods presented. They have been prepared in accordance with Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X
and do not include all the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting
principles for complete financial statements. Operating results for the twenty six weeks ended June
27, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire fiscal
year ending December 26, 2009.
These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial
statements and notes thereto included in the Companys 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
2
Table of Contents
LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
June 27, | Dec. 27, | |||||||
2009 | 2008 | |||||||
ASSETS |
||||||||
Current Assets |
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ | 92,091 | $ | 98,904 | ||||
Short-term investments |
23,791 | 23,479 | ||||||
Trade accounts receivable, less allowance of $7,092 and $6,230 |
237,516 | 315,065 | ||||||
Other receivables, including advances to independent contractors, less allowance
of $5,344 and $4,298 |
12,639 | 10,083 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes and other current assets |
28,128 | 27,871 | ||||||
Total current assets |
394,165 | 475,402 | ||||||
Operating property, less accumulated depreciation and amortization of $115,023
and $106,635 |
124,513 | 124,178 | ||||||
Goodwill |
31,134 | 31,134 | ||||||
Other assets |
33,512 | 32,816 | ||||||
Total assets |
$ | 583,324 | $ | 663,530 | ||||
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY |
||||||||
Current Liabilities |
||||||||
Cash overdraft |
$ | 20,471 | $ | 32,065 | ||||
Accounts payable |
91,858 | 105,882 | ||||||
Current maturities of long-term debt |
25,881 | 24,693 | ||||||
Insurance claims |
27,410 | 23,545 | ||||||
Accrued income taxes |
11,948 | 12,239 | ||||||
Other current liabilities |
34,435 | 38,161 | ||||||
Total current liabilities |
212,003 | 236,585 | ||||||
Long-term debt, excluding current maturities |
37,778 | 111,752 | ||||||
Insurance claims |
34,459 | 38,278 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes |
27,825 | 23,779 | ||||||
Shareholders Equity |
||||||||
Common stock, $0.01 par value, authorized 160,000,000 shares, issued 66,181,267
and 66,109,547 shares |
662 | 661 | ||||||
Additional paid-in capital |
158,543 | 154,533 | ||||||
Retained earnings |
731,959 | 704,331 | ||||||
Cost of 14,868,687 and 14,424,887 shares of common stock in treasury |
(619,609 | ) | (605,828 | ) | ||||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
(296 | ) | (561 | ) | ||||
Total shareholders equity |
271,259 | 253,136 | ||||||
Total liabilities and shareholders equity |
$ | 583,324 | $ | 663,530 | ||||
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
3
Table of Contents
LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
Twenty Six Weeks Ended | Thirteen Weeks Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 27, | June 28, | June 27, | June 28, | |||||||||||||
2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | |||||||||||||
Revenue |
$ | 960,411 | $ | 1,306,479 | $ | 491,164 | $ | 697,651 | ||||||||
Investment income |
675 | 1,869 | 250 | 773 | ||||||||||||
Costs and expenses: |
||||||||||||||||
Purchased transportation |
717,891 | 1,003,345 | 366,567 | 538,316 | ||||||||||||
Commissions to agents |
78,251 | 99,590 | 39,927 | 52,776 | ||||||||||||
Other operating costs |
14,838 | 13,940 | 7,388 | 7,356 | ||||||||||||
Insurance and claims |
18,799 | 19,034 | 9,797 | 9,513 | ||||||||||||
Selling, general and administrative |
66,612 | 70,958 | 32,243 | 35,101 | ||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
11,201 | 10,307 | 5,716 | 5,177 | ||||||||||||
Total costs and expenses |
907,592 | 1,217,174 | 461,638 | 648,239 | ||||||||||||
Operating income |
53,494 | 91,174 | 29,776 | 50,185 | ||||||||||||
Interest and debt expense |
2,136 | 3,878 | 973 | 1,736 | ||||||||||||
Income before income taxes |
51,358 | 87,296 | 28,803 | 48,449 | ||||||||||||
Income taxes |
19,607 | 33,788 | 10,946 | 18,684 | ||||||||||||
Net income |
$ | 31,751 | $ | 53,508 | $ | 17,857 | $ | 29,765 | ||||||||
Earnings per common share |
$ | 0.62 | $ | 1.01 | $ | 0.35 | $ | 0.56 | ||||||||
Diluted earnings per share |
$ | 0.61 | $ | 1.01 | $ | 0.35 | $ | 0.56 | ||||||||
Average number of shares outstanding: |
||||||||||||||||
Earnings per common share |
51,453,000 | 52,726,000 | 51,330,000 | 52,851,000 | ||||||||||||
Diluted earnings per share |
51,636,000 | 53,198,000 | 51,487,000 | 53,373,000 | ||||||||||||
Dividends paid per common share |
$ | 0.0800 | $ | 0.0750 | $ | 0.0400 | $ | 0.0375 | ||||||||
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
4
Table of Contents
LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in thousands)
(Unaudited)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in thousands)
(Unaudited)
Twenty Six Weeks Ended | ||||||||
June 27, | June 28, | |||||||
2009 | 2008 | |||||||
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
||||||||
Net income |
$ | 31,751 | $ | 53,508 | ||||
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities: |
||||||||
Depreciation and amortization of operating property |
11,201 | 10,307 | ||||||
Non-cash interest charges |
109 | 87 | ||||||
Provisions for losses on trade and other accounts receivable |
4,868 | 3,156 | ||||||
Losses (gains) on sales/disposals of operating property |
(80 | ) | 7 | |||||
Director compensation paid in common stock |
| 634 | ||||||
Deferred income taxes, net |
3,542 | 4,183 | ||||||
Stock-based compensation |
2,570 | 3,352 | ||||||
Changes in operating assets and liabilities: |
||||||||
Decrease (increase) in trade and other accounts receivable |
70,125 | (47,409 | ) | |||||
Decrease (increase) in other assets |
388 | (7,056 | ) | |||||
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable |
(14,024 | ) | 15,664 | |||||
Decrease in other liabilities |
(4,149 | ) | (1,405 | ) | ||||
Increase (decrease) in insurance claims |
46 | (440 | ) | |||||
NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
106,347 | 34,588 | ||||||
INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
||||||||
Net change in other short-term investments |
4,553 | (2,783 | ) | |||||
Sales and maturities of investments |
5,612 | 7,529 | ||||||
Purchases of investments |
(11,049 | ) | (6,881 | ) | ||||
Purchases of operating property |
(2,047 | ) | (3,997 | ) | ||||
Proceeds from sales of operating property |
384 | 23 | ||||||
NET CASH USED BY INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
(2,547 | ) | (6,109 | ) | ||||
FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
||||||||
Increase (decrease) in cash overdraft |
(11,594 | ) | 4,368 | |||||
Dividends paid |
(4,123 | ) | (3,955 | ) | ||||
Proceeds from exercises of stock options |
1,116 | 11,993 | ||||||
Excess tax benefit on stock option exercises |
325 | 1,630 | ||||||
Borrowings on revolving credit facility |
| 67,000 | ||||||
Purchases of common stock |
(13,781 | ) | | |||||
Principal payments on long-term debt and capital lease obligations |
(82,579 | ) | (91,473 | ) | ||||
NET CASH USED BY FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
(110,636 | ) | (10,437 | ) | ||||
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
23 | | ||||||
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
(6,813 | ) | 18,042 | |||||
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
98,904 | 60,750 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
$ | 92,091 | $ | 78,792 | ||||
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
5
Table of Contents
LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
Twenty Six Weeks Ended June 27, 2009
(Dollars in thousands)
(Unaudited)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
Twenty Six Weeks Ended June 27, 2009
(Dollars in thousands)
(Unaudited)
Accumulated | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional | Treasury Stock | Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Common Stock | Paid-In | Retained | at Cost | Comprehensive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares | Amount | Capital | Earnings | Shares | Amount | Income (Loss) | Total | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance December 27, 2008 |
66,109,547 | $ | 661 | $ | 154,533 | $ | 704,331 | 14,424,887 | $ | (605,828 | ) | $ | (561 | ) | $ | 253,136 | ||||||||||||||||
Net income |
31,751 | 31,751 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends paid ($0.08 per share) |
(4,123 | ) | (4,123 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Purchases of common stock |
443,800 | (13,781 | ) | (13,781 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock-based compensation |
2,570 | 2,570 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exercises of
stock options, including excess tax benefit |
71,720 | 1 | 1,440 | 1,441 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency translation |
23 | 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unrealized gain on
available-for-sale
investments, net of income
taxes |
242 | 242 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance June 27, 2009 |
66,181,267 | $ | 662 | $ | 158,543 | $ | 731,959 | 14,868,687 | $ | (619,609 | ) | $ | (296 | ) | $ | 271,259 | ||||||||||||||||
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
6
Table of Contents
LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Landstar System, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Landstar System Holdings, Inc., and reflect all adjustments (all of a normal, recurring
nature) which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair statement of the results for
the periods presented. The preparation of the consolidated financial statements requires the use of
managements estimates. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Landstar System, Inc.
and its subsidiary are herein referred to as Landstar or the Company.
(1) Share-based Payments
The Companys Board of Directors has amended and restated the 2002 Employee Stock Option Plan.
As amended and restated, the 2002 Employee Stock Option Plan is now called the Amended and Restated
2002 Employee Stock Option and Stock Incentive Plan (the ESOSIP). The ESOSIP was approved by vote
of the Companys shareholders at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders on April 30, 2009. The
amendment and restatement of the ESOSIP will, among other things, provide the Compensation
Committee of the Companys Board of Directors the power to grant equity and equity-based awards in
addition to stock options, including restricted stock, stock appreciation rights, performance
shares and other stock based awards. It also extends the term of the ESOSIP to 10 years after the
date it was amended and restated by the Companys Board of Directors for all awards, except for
incentive stock options which may not be granted after the tenth anniversary of the date the 2002
Employee Stock Option Plan was originally adopted by the Board.
In revising the ESOSIP, the Company has not increased the number of shares available for grant
under the 2002 Employee Stock Option Plan. As originally adopted, 800,000 shares were authorized
for issuance. Through the adjustment provisions of the 2002 Employee Stock Option Plan, to reflect
stock splits with respect to the Companys common stock, the number of shares authorized for
issuance has been adjusted to be 6,400,000 shares. Awards of restricted stock, performance shares
or other stock-based awards now authorized under the ESOSIP would be made from the existing pool of
shares available under the 2002 Employee Stock Option Plan. Moreover, to the extent that the awards
of restricted stock, performance shares or other stock-based awards provide the recipient with the
full value of the shares, and the settlement of an existing obligation is not otherwise payable
in cash, each share granted would count as two shares against the share limit in the ESOSIP.
As of June 27, 2009, the Company had an employee stock option plan, the ESOSIP and one stock
option plan for members of its Board of Directors (the Plans). No further grants can be made
under the employee stock option plan as its term for granting stock options has expired. In
addition, no further grants are to be made under the stock option plan for members of the Board of
Directors. Amounts recognized in the financial statements with respect to these Plans are as
follows (in thousands):
Twenty Six Weeks Ended | Thirteen Weeks Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 27, | June 28, | June 27, | June 28, | |||||||||||||
2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | |||||||||||||
Total cost of the Plans during the period |
$ | 2,570 | $ | 3,352 | $ | 1,181 | $ | 1,659 | ||||||||
Amount of related income tax benefit
recognized during the period |
650 | 1,060 | 297 | 530 | ||||||||||||
Net cost of the Plans during the period |
$ | 1,920 | $ | 2,292 | $ | 884 | $ | 1,129 | ||||||||
The fair value of each option grant on its grant date was calculated using the Black-Scholes
option pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions for grants made in the 2009
and 2008 twenty-six-week periods:
2009 | 2008 | |||||||
Expected volatility |
38.0 | % | 33.0 | % | ||||
Expected dividend yield |
0.400 | % | 0.375 | % | ||||
Risk-free interest rate |
1.50 | % | 3.00 | % | ||||
Expected lives (in years) |
4.0 | 4.1 |
7
Table of Contents
The Company utilizes historical data, including exercise patterns and employee departure
behavior, in estimating the term options will be outstanding. Expected volatility was based on
historical volatility and other factors, such as expected changes in volatility arising from
planned changes to the Companys business, if any. The risk-free interest rate was based on the
yield of zero coupon U.S. Treasury bonds for terms that approximated the terms of the options
granted. The weighted average grant date fair value of stock options granted during the
twenty-six-week periods ended June 27, 2009 and June 28, 2008 was $11.75 and $12.60, respectively.
The following table summarizes information regarding the Companys stock options under the
Plans:
Weighted Average | ||||||||||||||||
Weighted Average | Remaining | |||||||||||||||
Number of | Exercise Price | Contractual | Aggregate Intrinsic | |||||||||||||
Options | per Share | Term (years) | Value (000s) | |||||||||||||
Options outstanding at December 27, 2008
|
2,505,644 | $ | 35.47 | |||||||||||||
Granted
|
362,000 | $ | 38.24 | |||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(71,720 | ) | $ | 15.57 | ||||||||||||
Forfeited
|
(93,000 | ) | $ | 42.74 | ||||||||||||
Options outstanding at June 27, 2009
|
2,702,924 | $ | 36.12 | 7.0 | $ | 0 | ||||||||||
Options exercisable at June 27, 2009
|
1,333,424 | $ | 31.39 | 5.4 | $ | 6,136 | ||||||||||
As of June 27, 2009, there were 1,906,747 stock options outstanding that were out-of-the-money
based on that days per share closing market price of $35.99 as reported on the NASDAQ Global
Select Market. The remaining 796,177 stock options outstanding as of June 27, 2009 that were
in-the-money had an aggregate intrinsic value of $10,777,000. The total intrinsic value of stock
options exercised during the twenty-six-week periods ended June 27, 2009 and June 28, 2008 was
$1,453,000 and $10,046,000, respectively.
As of June 27, 2009, there were 5,300,824 shares of the Companys common stock reserved for
issuance upon exercise of options granted and to be granted under the Plans.
As of June 27, 2009, there was $13,429,000 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to
non-vested stock options granted under the Plans. The compensation cost related to these non-vested
options is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 3.5 years.
Under the Directors Stock Compensation Plan, outside members of the Board of Directors who
are elected or re-elected to the Board receive 6,000 shares of common stock of the Company, subject
to certain restrictions including restrictions on transfer. The Company issued 12,000 shares of its
common stock in the twenty-six-week period ended June 28, 2008 to members of the Board of Directors
upon such members re-election at the 2008 annual stockholders meeting. During the 2008
twenty-six-week period, the Company reported $634,000 in compensation expense representing the fair
market value of these share awards. There were no such shares issued in the twenty-six-week period
ended June 27, 2009. As of June 27, 2009, there were 138,423 shares of the Companys common stock
reserved for issuance upon the grant of stock under the Directors Stock Compensation Plan.
(2) Income Taxes
The provisions for income taxes for the 2009 and 2008 twenty-six-week periods were based on
estimated full year combined effective income tax rates of approximately 38.2% and 38.7%,
respectively, which were higher than the statutory federal income tax rate primarily as a result of
state taxes, the meals and entertainment exclusion and non-deductible stock-based compensation.
(3) Earnings Per Share
Earnings per common share amounts are based on the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding and diluted earnings per share amounts are based on the weighted average number of
common shares outstanding plus the incremental shares that would have been outstanding upon the
assumed exercise of all dilutive stock options.
8
Table of Contents
The following table provides a reconciliation of the average number of common shares
outstanding used to calculate earnings per share to the average number of common shares and common
share equivalents outstanding used to calculate diluted earnings per share (in thousands):
Twenty Six Weeks Ended | Thirteen Weeks Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 27, | June 28, | June 27, | June 28, | |||||||||||||
2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | |||||||||||||
Average number of
common shares
outstanding |
51,453 | 52,726 | 51,330 | 52,851 | ||||||||||||
Incremental shares
from assumed
exercises of stock
options |
183 | 472 | 157 | 522 | ||||||||||||
Average number of
common shares and
common share
equivalents
outstanding |
51,636 | 53,198 | 51,487 | 53,373 | ||||||||||||
For the twenty-six-week and thirteen-week periods ended June 27, 2009 there were 2,012,747 and
1,906,747, respectively, options outstanding to purchase shares of common stock excluded from the
calculation of diluted earnings per share because they were antidilutive. There were no options
outstanding to purchase shares of common stock excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings
per share because they were antidilutive for the twenty-six-week and thirteen-week periods ended
June 28, 2008.
(4) Additional Cash Flow Information
During the 2009 twenty-six-week period, Landstar paid income taxes and interest of $11,777,000
and $2,438,000, respectively. During the 2008 twenty-six-week period, Landstar paid income taxes
and interest of $31,090,000 and $4,577,000, respectively. Landstar acquired operating property by
entering into capital leases in the amount of $9,793,000 and $703,000 in the 2009 and 2008
twenty-six-week periods, respectively.
(5) Segment Information
The following tables summarize information about Landstars reportable business segments as of
and for the twenty-six-week and thirteen-week periods ended June 27, 2009 and June 28, 2008 (in
thousands):
Twenty Six Weeks Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
June 27, 2009 | June 28, 2008 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Transportation | Transportation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Logistics | Insurance | Total | Logistics | Insurance | Total | |||||||||||||||||||
External revenue |
$ | 942,032 | $ | 18,379 | $ | 960,411 | $ | 1,288,231 | $ | 18,248 | $ | 1,306,479 | ||||||||||||
Investment income |
675 | 675 | 1,869 | 1,869 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Internal revenue |
15,517 | 15,517 | 15,861 | 15,861 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income |
36,496 | 16,998 | 53,494 | 73,560 | 17,614 | 91,174 | ||||||||||||||||||
Goodwill |
31,134 | 31,134 | 31,134 | 31,134 |
Thirteen Weeks Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
June 27, 2009 | June 28, 2008 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Transportation | Transportation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Logistics | Insurance | Total | Logistics | Insurance | Total | |||||||||||||||||||
External revenue |
$ | 482,098 | $ | 9,066 | $ | 491,164 | $ | 688,631 | $ | 9,020 | $ | 697,651 | ||||||||||||
Investment income |
250 | 250 | 773 | 773 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Internal revenue |
9,686 | 9,686 | 10,009 | 10,009 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income |
21,390 | 8,386 | 29,776 | 41,174 | 9,011 | 50,185 |
In the twenty-six-week and thirteen-week periods ended June 28, 2008, one customer accounted
for 10 percent of the Companys revenue. In the twenty-six-week and thirteen-week periods ended
June 27, 2009, there were no customers who accounted for 10 percent or more of the Companys
revenue.
(6) Comprehensive Income
The following table includes the components of comprehensive income for the twenty-six-week
and thirteen-week periods ended June 27, 2009 and June 28, 2008 (in thousands):
Twenty Six Weeks Ended | Thirteen Weeks Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 27, | June 28, | June 27, | June 28, | |||||||||||||
2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | |||||||||||||
Net income |
$ | 31,751 | $ | 53,508 | $ | 17,857 | $ | 29,765 | ||||||||
Unrealized holding gains/(losses) on
available-for-sale investments, net of income taxes |
242 | (137 | ) | 394 | (341 | ) | ||||||||||
Foreign currency translation gains |
23 | | 110 | | ||||||||||||
Comprehensive income |
$ | 32,016 | $ | 53,371 | $ | 18,361 | $ | 29,424 | ||||||||
9
Table of Contents
Management has performed an analysis of the nature of the unrealized losses on
available-for-sale investments to determine whether such losses are other-than-temporary.
Unrealized losses, representing the excess of the purchase price of an investment over its market
value as of the end of a period, considered to be other-than-temporary are to be included as a
charge in the statement of income while unrealized losses considered to be temporary are to be
included as a component of shareholders equity. The accumulated unrealized loss on
available-for-sale investments as of June 28, 2008 was considered by management to be temporary and
therefore was reported as a component of shareholders equity. The Company implemented the
provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board Staff Position No. FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2,
Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments (FSP 115-2) during the
Companys 2009 second fiscal quarter. The implementation of FSP 115-2 did not have a material
effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Company.
Accumulated other comprehensive loss as reported as a component of shareholders equity at
June 27, 2009 of $296,000 represents the unrealized net loss on the translation of the financial
statements of the Companys Canadian operations of $316,000 net of the cumulative unrealized
holding gains on available-for-sale investments, net of income taxes, of $20,000.
(7) Commitments and Contingencies
As of June 27, 2009, Landstar had $28,847,000 of letters of credit outstanding under the
Companys revolving credit facility and $45,258,000 of letters of credit secured by investments
held by the Companys insurance segment. Short-term investments include $9,457,000 in current
maturities of investment-grade bonds and $14,334,000 of cash equivalents held by the Companys
insurance segment at June 27, 2009. These short-term investments together with $12,827,000 of the
non-current portion of investment-grade bonds and $10,868,000 of cash equivalents included in other
assets at June 27, 2009, provide collateral for the $45,258,000 of letters of credit issued to
guarantee payment of insurance claims.
As further described in periodic and current reports previously filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (the
Defendants) are defendants in a suit (the Litigation) brought in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (the District Court) by the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and four former BCO Independent Contractors (the Named
Plaintiffs and, with OOIDA, the Plaintiffs) on behalf of all independent contractors who provide
truck capacity to the Company and its subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements (the BCO
Independent Contractors). The Plaintiffs allege that certain aspects of the Companys motor
carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent Contractors violate certain federal
leasing regulations and seek injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys
fees.
On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief,
entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings
related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and other important elements of the
Litigation relating to liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the Appellate Court) of
certain of the District Courts rulings in favor of the Defendants. The Defendants asked the
Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with
respect to certain other rulings of the District Court.
On September 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which, among other things,
affirmed the District Courts rulings that (i) the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable
federal leasing regulations from charging administrative or other fees to BCO Independent
Contractors in connection with voluntary programs offered by the Defendants through which a BCO
Independent Contractor may purchase discounted products and services for a charge that is deducted
against the compensation payable to the BCO Independent Contractor (a Charge-back Deduction),
(ii) the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or disgorgement with respect to violations by
Defendants of the applicable federal leasing regulations but instead may recover only actual
damages, if any, which they sustained as a result of any such violations and (iii) the claims of
BCO Independent Contractors may not be handled on a class action basis for purposes of determining
the amount of actual damages, if any, they sustained as a result of any violations. Further, the
analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs
of the federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of all leases currently in use
between the Defendants and BCO Independent Contractors.
However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District Courts rulings (i) that an
old version of the lease formerly used by Defendants but not in use with any current BCO
Independent Contractor complied with applicable disclosure requirements under the federal leasing
regulations with respect to adjustments to compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on
certain loads sourced from the U. S. Department of Defense, and (ii) that the Defendants had
provided sufficient documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the applicable federal
leasing regulations relating to how the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were computed.
The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit the Plaintiffs to seek
injunctive relief with respect to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to hold
an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence of any
damages they actually sustained as a result of such violations.
10
Table of Contents
Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with the Appellate Court seeking
rehearing of the Appellate Courts ruling; however, there can be no assurance that any petition for
rehearing will be granted.
Although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of the Litigation, including
any possible award of attorneys fees to the Plaintiffs, the Company believes that (i) no Plaintiff
has sustained any actual damages as a result of any violations by the Defendants of the federal
leasing regulations and (ii) injunctive relief, if any, that may be granted by the District Court
on remand is unlikely to have a material adverse financial effect on the Company.
The Company is involved in certain other claims and pending litigation arising from the normal
conduct of business. Based on knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, opinions of outside
counsel, management believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses with
respect to the resolution of all such other claims and pending litigation and that the ultimate
outcome, after provisions thereof, will not have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition of the Company, but could have a material effect on the results of operations in a given
quarter or year.
(8) Concentrations of Credit Risk in Key Customers
Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to significant concentrations of
credit risk include accounts receivable from trade customers. The Company performs ongoing credit
evaluations of the financial condition of its customers and an allowance for doubtful accounts is
maintained as required under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. As a result of the
significant weakness in the U.S. economy, the Company experienced a higher level of customer bad
debt expense during the first half of 2009 than experienced in any first half of any of the
previous five years. Credit risk with respect to the Companys accounts receivable historically has
been broadly diversified due to the large number of entities comprising the Companys customer base
and their dispersion across many different industries and geographical regions. No single customer
accounted for more than 10% of Company revenue for the twenty-six-week period ended June 27, 2009,
and no single customer accounted for more than 10% of the gross accounts receivable balance at June
27, 2009. It should be noted, however, that revenue from customers in the automotive sector
represented in the aggregate approximately 7% of the Companys revenue for the 2009 twenty-six-week
period. The Company estimates that receivable balances relating to customers with a significant
concentration of their business in the automotive sector represented approximately 7% of gross
accounts receivable at June 27, 2009. The financial condition of the U.S. domestic automotive
industry may be adversely affected by the availability of credit to U.S. consumers and the overall
financial condition of the U.S. economy, both of which continue to show signs of weakness. A
significant deterioration in the financial condition or operations of the Companys customers
within the automotive sector, including the larger U.S. domestic automobile vendors, suppliers and
other service providers, or in the Companys non-automotive sector customer accounts, could
negatively impact the collectability of trade accounts receivable due from these customers, which
could result in an adverse effect on the Companys operating results in a given quarter or year.
(9) Subsequent Event
In the first week of the Companys 2009 fiscal third quarter, the Company completed the
acquisitions of two supply chain transportation integration companies. During the 2009 second
quarter, the Company incurred $2,005,000, or $0.02 per common share ($0.02 per diluted share), in
one-time costs related to the completion of these acquisitions. Cash paid plus net liabilities
assumed for the acquisitions was approximately $32,000,000. In addition, the Company may be
required to pay additional consideration to the prior owner of one of the acquired companies
contingent on the acquired company achieving certain levels of earnings through December 2014. The
Company expects that the acquisitions will not have a material effect on its revenues and earnings
for the remainder of fiscal year end 2009.
The Company has evaluated the impact of subsequent events through July 29, 2009,
the date on which the financial statements were available to be issued, and has determined that all subsequent events have been appropriately reflected in the accompanying financial statements.
Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the attached interim consolidated
financial statements and notes thereto, and with the Companys audited financial statements and
notes thereto for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2008 and Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in the 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
11
Table of Contents
Introduction
Landstar System, Inc. and its subsidiary, Landstar System Holdings, Inc. (together, referred
to herein as Landstar or the Company), is a non-asset based transportation and logistics services company, providing
transportation capacity and related transportation services to shippers throughout the United
States and, to a lesser extent, in Canada, and between the United States and Canada, Mexico and
other countries. These business services emphasize safety, information coordination and customer
service and are delivered through a network of independent commission sales agents and third party
capacity providers linked together by a series of technological applications which are provided and
coordinated by the Company. The Company markets its services primarily through independent
commission sales agents and exclusively utilizes third party capacity providers to handle
customers freight. The nature of the Companys business is such that a significant portion of its
operating costs varies directly with revenue.
The transportation logistics segment provides a wide range of transportation and logistics
services, including truckload transportation, rail intermodal, air cargo and ocean cargo services,
the arrangement of multimodal (ground, air, ocean and rail) moves and warehousing. Industries
serviced by the transportation logistics segment include automotive products, paper, lumber and
building products, metals, chemicals, foodstuffs, heavy machinery, retail, electronics, ammunition
and explosives and military hardware. In addition, the transportation logistics segment provides
transportation services to other transportation companies, including logistics and
less-than-truckload service providers. The transportation logistics segment also provides dedicated
contract and logistics solutions, including freight optimization and less-than-truckload freight
consolidations, expedited ground and air delivery of time-critical freight and the movement of
containers via ocean. This segment markets its services primarily through independent commission
sales agents who enter into contractual arrangements with Landstar and are responsible for locating
freight, making that freight available to Landstars capacity providers and coordinating the
transportation of the freight with customers and capacity providers. The Companys third party
capacity providers consist of independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the Company
under exclusive lease arrangements (the BCO Independent Contractors), trucking companies who
provide truck capacity to the Company under non-exclusive contractual arrangements (the Truck
Brokerage Carriers), air cargo carriers, ocean cargo carriers, railroads and independent warehouse
capacity providers (Warehouse Capacity Owners). As of June 27, 2009, Landstar had approximately
120 Warehouse Capacity Owners under contract. The Company has contracts with all of the Class 1
domestic railroads and certain Canadian railroads and contracts with domestic and international
airlines and ocean lines. Each of the independent commission sales agents has the opportunity to
market all of the services provided by the transportation logistics segment. During the twenty six
weeks ended June 27, 2009, revenue hauled by BCO Independent Contractors, Truck Brokerage Carriers,
rail intermodal, ocean cargo carriers and air cargo carriers represented 58%, 35%, 4%, 2%, and 1%,
respectively, of the Companys transportation logistics segment revenue.
The insurance segment is comprised of Signature Insurance Company, a wholly owned offshore
insurance subsidiary, and Risk Management Claim Services, Inc. This segment provides risk and
claims management services to Landstars Operating Subsidiaries. In addition, it reinsures certain
risks of the Companys BCO Independent Contractors and provides certain property and casualty
insurance directly to Landstars operating subsidiaries. Revenue, representing premiums on
reinsurance programs provided to the Companys BCO Independent Contractors, at the insurance
segment represented approximately 2% of the Companys total revenue for the twenty six weeks ended
June 27, 2009.
Changes in Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Management believes the Companys success principally depends on its ability to generate
freight through its network of independent commission sales agents and to efficiently deliver that
freight utilizing third party capacity providers. Management believes the most significant factors
to the Companys success include increasing revenue, sourcing capacity and controlling costs.
While customer demand, which is subject to overall economic conditions, ultimately drives
increases or decreases in revenue, the Company primarily relies on its independent commission sales
agents to establish customer relationships and generate revenue opportunities. Managements primary
focus with respect to revenue growth is on revenue generated by independent commission sales agents
who on an annual basis generate $1 million or more of Landstar revenue (Million Dollar Agents).
Management believes future revenue growth is primarily dependent on its ability to increase both
the revenue generated by Million Dollar Agents and the number of Million Dollar Agents through a
combination of recruiting new agents and increasing the revenue opportunities generated by existing
independent commission sales agents. During the 2008 fiscal year, 484 independent commission sales
agents generated $1 million or more of Landstars revenue and thus qualified as Million Dollar
Agents. During the 2008 fiscal year, the average revenue generated by a Million Dollar Agent was
$4,907,000 and revenue generated by Million Dollar Agents in the aggregate represented 90% of
consolidated Landstar revenue. The Company had 1,436 and 1,409 agent locations at June 27, 2009
and June 28, 2008, respectively.
12
Table of Contents
Management monitors business activity by tracking the number of loads (volume) and revenue per
load (price). Revenue per load can be influenced by many factors which do not necessarily indicate
a change in price. Those factors include the average length of haul, freight type, special handling
and equipment requirements and delivery time requirements. For shipments involving two or more
modes of transportation, revenue is classified by the mode of transportation having the highest
cost for the load. The following table summarizes this data by mode of transportation:
Twenty Six Weeks Ended | Thirteen Weeks Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 27, | June 28, | June 27, | June 28, | |||||||||||||
2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | |||||||||||||
Revenue generated through (in thousands): |
||||||||||||||||
BCO Independent Contractors |
$ | 550,665 | $ | 700,195 | $ | 288,600 | $ | 375,391 | ||||||||
Truck Brokerage Carriers |
329,479 | 490,334 | 165,236 | 261,701 | ||||||||||||
Rail intermodal |
36,728 | 71,598 | 17,410 | 37,809 | ||||||||||||
Ocean cargo carriers |
17,518 | 18,220 | 8,667 | 9,786 | ||||||||||||
Air cargo carriers |
7,508 | 7,449 | 2,121 | 3,860 | ||||||||||||
Other (1) |
18,513 | 18,683 | 9,130 | 9,104 | ||||||||||||
$ | 960,411 | $ | 1,306,479 | $ | 491,164 | $ | 697,651 | |||||||||
Number of loads: |
||||||||||||||||
BCO Independent Contractors |
365,000 | 429,080 | 194,350 | 225,880 | ||||||||||||
Truck Brokerage Carriers |
240,020 | 288,970 | 122,370 | 146,940 | ||||||||||||
Rail intermodal |
18,290 | 31,000 | 8,710 | 16,020 | ||||||||||||
Ocean cargo carriers |
2,590 | 2,590 | 1,350 | 1,340 | ||||||||||||
Air cargo carriers |
5,100 | 3,870 | 1,840 | 1,880 | ||||||||||||
631,000 | 755,510 | 328,620 | 392,060 | |||||||||||||
Revenue per load: |
||||||||||||||||
BCO Independent Contractors |
$ | 1,509 | $ | 1,632 | $ | 1,485 | $ | 1,662 | ||||||||
Truck Brokerage Carriers |
1,373 | 1,697 | 1,350 | 1,781 | ||||||||||||
Rail intermodal |
2,008 | 2,310 | 1,999 | 2,360 | ||||||||||||
Ocean cargo carriers |
6,764 | 7,035 | 6,420 | 7,303 | ||||||||||||
Air cargo carriers |
1,472 | 1,925 | 1,153 | 2,053 |
(1) | Includes premium revenue generated by the insurance segment and warehousing revenue generated by the transportation logistics segment. |
Also critical to the Companys success is its ability to secure capacity, particularly truck
capacity, at rates that allow the Company to profitably transport customers freight. The
following table summarizes available truck capacity providers:
June 27, 2009 | June 28, 2008 | |||||||
BCO Independent Contractors |
8,286 | 8,222 | ||||||
Truck Brokerage Carriers: |
||||||||
Approved and active (1) |
14,827 | 16,080 | ||||||
Other approved |
11,082 | 9,219 | ||||||
25,909 | 25,299 | |||||||
Total available truck capacity providers |
34,195 | 33,521 | ||||||
Number of trucks provided by BCO Independent Contractors |
8,875 | 8,804 | ||||||
(1) | Active refers to Truck Brokerage Carriers who moved at least one load in the 180 days immediately preceding the fiscal quarter end. |
The Company incurs costs that are directly related to the transportation of freight that
include purchased transportation and commissions to agents. The Company incurs indirect costs
associated with the transportation of freight that include other operating costs and insurance and
claims. In addition, the Company incurs selling, general and administrative costs essential to
administering its business operations. Management continually monitors all components of the costs
incurred by the Company and establishes annual cost budgets which, in general, are used to
benchmark costs incurred on a monthly basis.
Purchased transportation represents the amount a BCO Independent Contractor or other third
party capacity provider is paid to haul freight. The amount of purchased transportation paid to a
BCO Independent Contractor is primarily based on a contractually agreed-
upon percentage of revenue generated by the haul. Purchased transportation paid to a Truck
Brokerage Carrier is based on either a negotiated rate for each load hauled or a contractually
agreed-upon rate. Purchased transportation paid to rail intermodal, air
13
Table of Contents
cargo or ocean cargo
carriers is based on contractually agreed-upon fixed rates. Purchased transportation as a
percentage of revenue for truck brokerage, rail intermodal and ocean cargo services is normally
higher than that provided by BCO Independent Contractor and air cargo services. Purchased
transportation is the largest component of costs and expenses and, on a consolidated basis,
increases or decreases in proportion to the revenue generated through BCO Independent Contractors
and other third party capacity providers and revenue from the insurance segment. Purchased
transportation costs are recognized upon the completion of freight delivery.
Commissions to agents are based on contractually agreed-upon percentages of revenue or gross
profit, defined as revenue less the cost of purchased transportation. Commissions to agents as a
percentage of consolidated revenue will vary directly with fluctuations in the percentage of
consolidated revenue generated by the various modes of transportation and the insurance segment and
with changes in gross profit on services provided by Truck Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal, air
cargo and ocean cargo carriers. Commissions to agents are recognized upon the completion of
freight delivery.
Maintenance costs for Company-provided trailing equipment, BCO Independent Contractor
recruiting costs and bad debts from BCO Independent Contractors and independent commission sales
agents are the largest components of other operating costs.
Potential liability associated with accidents in the trucking industry is severe and
occurrences are unpredictable. Landstars retained liability for individual commercial trucking
claims varies depending on when such claims are incurred. For commercial trucking claims, Landstar
retains liability up to $5,000,000 per occurrence. The Company also retains liability for each
general liability claim up to $1,000,000, $250,000 for each workers compensation claim and up to
$250,000 for each cargo claim. The Companys exposure to liability associated with accidents
incurred by Truck Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal capacity providers and air cargo and ocean
cargo carriers who transport freight on behalf of the Company is reduced by various factors
including the extent to which they maintain their own insurance coverage. A material increase in
the frequency or severity of accidents, cargo claims or workers compensation claims or the
unfavorable development of existing claims could be expected to materially adversely affect
Landstars results of operations.
Employee compensation and benefits account for over half of the Companys selling, general and
administrative costs.
Depreciation and amortization primarily relate to depreciation of trailing equipment and
management information services equipment.
The following table sets forth the percentage relationships of income and expense items to
revenue for the periods indicated:
Twenty Six Weeks Ended | Thirteen Weeks Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 27, | June 28, | June 27, | June 28, | |||||||||||||
2009 | 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | |||||||||||||
Revenue |
100.0 | % | 100.0 | % | 100.0 | % | 100.0 | % | ||||||||
Investment income |
0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | ||||||||||||
Costs and expenses: |
||||||||||||||||
Purchased transportation |
74.8 | 76.8 | 74.6 | 77.2 | ||||||||||||
Commissions to agents |
8.1 | 7.6 | 8.1 | 7.6 | ||||||||||||
Other operating costs |
1.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||
Insurance and claims |
2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.4 | ||||||||||||
Selling, general and administrative
|
6.9 | 5.4 | 6.6 | 5.0 | ||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
1.2 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||
Total costs and expenses |
94.5 | 93.1 | 94.0 | 92.9 | ||||||||||||
Operating income |
5.6 | 7.0 | 6.1 | 7.2 | ||||||||||||
Interest and debt expense |
0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | ||||||||||||
Income before income taxes |
5.3 | 6.7 | 5.9 | 6.9 | ||||||||||||
Income taxes |
2.0 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 2.6 | ||||||||||||
Net income |
3.3 | % | 4.1 | % | 3.6 | % | 4.3 | % | ||||||||
TWENTY SIX WEEKS ENDED JUNE 27, 2009 COMPARED TO TWENTY SIX WEEKS ENDED JUNE 28, 2008
Revenue for the 2009 twenty-six-week period was $960,411,000, a decrease of $346,068,000, or
26.5%, compared to the 2008 twenty-six-week period. Revenue decreased $346,199,000, or 26.9%, at
the transportation logistics segment. The decrease in revenue at the transportation logistics
segment was primarily attributable to decreased revenue hauled by BCO Independent Contractors,
Truck Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal carriers and ocean cargo carriers of 21%, 33%, 49% and 4%,
respectively, partially offset by increased revenue hauled by air cargo carriers of 1%. The number
of loads in the 2009 period hauled by BCO Independent
14
Table of Contents
Contractors, Truck Brokerage Carriers and
rail intermodal carriers decreased 15%, 17% and 41%, respectively, compared to the 2008 period. The
number of loads hauled by air cargo carriers increased 32% over the 2008 period, while the number
of loads hauled by ocean cargo carriers remained flat. Revenue per load for loads hauled by BCO
Independent Contractors, Truck Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal carriers, ocean cargo carriers
and air cargo carriers decreased approximately 8%, 19%, 13%, 4% and 24%, respectively, compared to
the 2008 period. The decrease in revenue per load hauled by BCO Independent Contractors, Truck
Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal and air and ocean cargo carriers was primarily attributable to
lower demand due to the overall weak economic conditions which caused increased pressure on price.
In addition, the decrease in revenue per load on Truck Brokerage Carrier revenue was partly
attributable to decreased fuel surcharges identified separately in billings to customers in the
2009 period compared to the 2008 period. Fuel surcharges on Truck Brokerage Carrier revenue
identified separately in billings to customers and included as a component of Truck Brokerage
Carrier revenue were $18,986,000 and $67,748,000 in the 2009 and 2008 periods, respectively. Fuel
surcharges billed to customers on revenue hauled by BCO Independent Contractors are excluded from
revenue.
Investment income at the insurance segment was $675,000 and $1,869,000 in the 2009 and 2008
twenty-six-week periods, respectively. The decrease in investment income was primarily due to a
decreased rate of return, attributable to a general decrease in interest rates on investments held
by the insurance segment in the 2009 period.
Purchased transportation was 74.8% and 76.8% of revenue in the 2009 and 2008 twenty-six-week
periods, respectively. The decrease in purchased transportation as a percentage of revenue was
primarily attributable to decreased rates of purchased transportation paid to Truck Brokerage
Carriers, due to lower fuel prices and excess truck capacity industry wide, and an increase in the
percentage of revenue hauled by BCO Independent Contractors, which tends to have a lower cost of
purchased transportation. Commissions to agents were 8.1% of revenue in the 2009 period and 7.6%
of revenue in the 2008 period. The increase in commissions to agents as a percentage of revenue was
primarily attributable to increased gross profit, defined as revenue less the cost of purchased
transportation, on revenue hauled by Truck Brokerage Carriers. Other operating costs were 1.5% and
1.0% of revenue in the 2009 and 2008 periods, respectively. The increase in other operating costs
as a percentage of revenue was primarily attributable to the effect of decreased revenue, increased
trailing equipment maintenance costs and an increased provision for contractor bad debt, partially
offset by decreased trailing equipment rental costs. Insurance and claims were 2.0% of revenue in
the 2009 period and 1.5% of revenue in the 2008 period. The increase in insurance and claims as a
percentage of revenue was primarily due to increased severity of commercial trucking claims and
occupational accident claims in the 2009 period and favorable development of prior year claims
reported in the 2008 period. Selling, general and administrative costs were 6.9% of revenue in the
2009 period and 5.4% of revenue in the 2008 period. The increase in selling, general and
administrative costs as a percentage of revenue was primarily attributable to one-time costs
related to the acquisition of two supply chain transportation integration companies completed in
the Companys third fiscal quarter, the effect of decreased revenue and an increase in the
provision for customer bad debt. In addition, there was no provision for bonuses reported in the
2009 period as management does not currently anticipate achieving bonus targets, whereas the 2008
period included a provision for bonuses. Depreciation and amortization was 1.2% of revenue in the
2009 period, compared with 0.8% in the 2008 period. The increase in depreciation and amortization
as a percentage of revenue was primarily due to the effect of decreased revenue and depreciation on
Company-owned trailing equipment.
Interest and debt expense was 0.3% of revenue in both the 2009 and 2008 twenty-six-week
periods.
The provisions for income taxes for the 2009 and 2008 twenty-six-week periods were based on
estimated full year combined effective income tax rates of approximately 38.2% and 38.7%,
respectively, which were higher than the statutory federal income tax rate primarily as a result of
state taxes, the meals and entertainment exclusion and non-deductible stock compensation expense.
The decrease in the effective income tax rate was primarily attributable to state income tax
planning strategies, implemented in the second half of 2008.
Net income was $31,751,000, or $0.62 per common share ($0.61 per diluted share), in the 2009
twenty-six-week period. Included in the 2009 twenty-six-week period was $2,005,000 of one-time
costs related to the acquisition of two supply chain transportation integration companies completed
in the first week of the 2009 third quarter. Net of related income tax benefits, these costs
reduced net income for the twenty-six-week period ended June 27, 2009 by $1,243,000, or $0.02 per
common share ($0.02 per diluted share). Net income was $53,508,000, or $1.01 per common share
($1.01 per diluted share), in the 2008 twenty-six-week period.
THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED JUNE 27, 2009 COMPARED TO THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED JUNE 28, 2008
Revenue for the 2009 thirteen-week period was $491,164,000, a decrease of $206,487,000, or
29.6%, compared to the 2008 thirteen-week period. Revenue decreased $206,533,000, or 30.0%, at the
transportation logistics segment. The decrease in revenue at the transportation logistics segment
was primarily attributable to decreased revenue hauled by BCO Independent Contractors, Truck
Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal carriers and air and ocean cargo carriers of 23%, 37% , 54%,
11% and 45% respectively. The number of loads in the 2009 period hauled by BCO Independent
Contractors, Truck Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal carriers and air
cargo carriers decreased 14%, 17%, 46% and 2%, respectively, compared to the 2008 period, while the
number of loads hauled by
15
Table of Contents
ocean cargo carriers increased 1% over the same period. Revenue per load
for loads hauled by BCO Independent Contractors, Truck Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal carriers
and air and ocean cargo carriers decreased approximately 11%, 24%, 15%, 12% and 44%, respectively,
compared to the 2008 period. The decrease in revenue per load hauled by BCO Independent
Contractors, Truck Brokerage Carriers, rail intermodal and air and ocean cargo carriers was
primarily attributable to lower demand due to the overall weak economic conditions which caused
increased pressure on price. In addition, the decrease in revenue per load on Truck Brokerage
Carrier revenue was partly attributable to decreased fuel surcharges identified separately in
billings to customers in the 2009 period compared to the 2008 period. Fuel surcharges on Truck
Brokerage Carrier revenue identified separately in billings to customers and included as a
component of Truck Brokerage Carrier revenue were $9,210,000 and $39,883,000 in the 2009 and 2008
periods, respectively.
Investment income at the insurance segment was $250,000 and $773,000 in the 2009 and 2008
thirteen-week periods, respectively. The decrease in investment income was primarily due to a
decreased rate of return, attributable to a general decrease in interest rates on investments held
by the insurance segment in the 2009 period.
Purchased transportation was 74.6% and 77.2% of revenue in the 2009 and 2008 thirteen-week
periods, respectively. The decrease in purchased transportation as a percentage of revenue was
primarily attributable to a decrease in the rate of purchased transportation paid to Truck
Brokerage Carriers, due to lower fuel prices and excess truck capacity industry wide, and an
increase in the percentage of revenue hauled by BCO Independent Contractors, which tends to have a
lower cost of purchased transportation. Commissions to agents were 8.1% of revenue in the 2009
period and 7.6% of revenue in the 2008 period. The increase in commissions to agents as a
percentage of revenue was primarily attributable to increased gross profit, defined as revenue less
the cost of purchased transportation, on revenue hauled by Truck Brokerage Carriers. Other
operating costs were 1.5% and 1.0% of revenue in the 2009 and 2008 periods, respectively. The
increase in other operating costs as a percentage of revenue was primarily attributable to the
effect of decreased revenue, increased trailing equipment maintenance costs and an increase in the
provision for contractor bad debt, partially offset by decreased trailing equipment rental costs.
Insurance and claims were 2.0% of revenue in the 2009 period and 1.4% of revenue in the 2008
period. The increase in insurance and claims as a percentage of revenue was primarily due to
increased severity of commercial trucking claims and occupational accident claims in the 2009
period. Selling, general and administrative costs were 6.6% of revenue in the 2009 period and 5.0%
of revenue in the 2008 period. The increase in selling, general and administrative costs as a
percentage of revenue was primarily attributable to one-time costs related to the acquisition of
two supply chain transportation integration companies completed in the companys third fiscal
quarter and the effect of decreased revenue. In addition, there was no provision for bonuses
reported in the 2009 period, whereas the 2008 period included a provision for bonuses.
Depreciation and amortization was 1.2% of revenue in the 2009 period, compared with 0.7% in the
2008 period. The increase in depreciation and amortization as a percentage of revenue was primarily
due to the effect of decreased revenue and depreciation on Company-owned trailing equipment.
Interest and debt expense was 0.2% and 0.3% of revenue in the 2009 and 2008 thirteen-week
periods, respectively. The decrease in interest and debt expense as a percentage of revenue was
primarily attributable to lower average borrowings on the companys senior credit facility, a lower
average rate on borrowings under the companys senior credit facility and lower average capital
lease obligations.
The provisions for income taxes for the 2009 and 2008 thirteen-week periods were based on
estimated full year combined effective income tax rates of approximately 38.0% and 38.6%,
respectively, which were higher than the statutory federal income tax rate primarily as a result of
state taxes, the meals and entertainment exclusion and non-deductible stock compensation expense.
The decrease in the effective income tax rate was primarily attributable to state income tax
planning strategies, implemented in the second half of 2008.
Net income was $17,857,000, or $0.35 per common share ($0.35 per diluted share), in the 2009
thirteen-week period. Included in the 2009 thirteen-week period was $2,005,000 of one-time costs
related to the acquisition of two supply chain transportation integration companies completed in
the first week of the 2009 third quarter. Net of related income tax benefits, these costs reduced
net income for the thirteen-week period ended June 27, 2009 by $1,243,000, or $0.02 per common
share ($0.02 per diluted share). Net income was $29,765,000, or $0.56 per common share ($0.56 per
diluted share), in the 2008 thirteen-week period.
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
Shareholders equity was $271,259,000, or 81% of total capitalization (defined as total debt
plus equity), at June 27, 2009, compared to $253,136,000, or 65% of total capitalization, at
December 27, 2008. The increase in shareholders equity was primarily a result of net income and
the effect of the exercises of stock options during the period, partially offset by the purchase of
443,800 shares of the Companys common stock at a total cost of $13,781,000 and dividends paid. The
Company paid $0.08 per share, or $4,123,000, in cash dividends during the twenty-six-week period
ended June 27, 2009. It is the intention of the Board of Directors to continue to pay a quarterly
dividend. As of June 27, 2009, the Company may purchase up to an additional 2,556,200 shares of its
common stock under its authorized stock purchase programs. Long-term debt, including current maturities,
was $63,659,000 at June 27, 2009, $72,786,000 lower than at December 27, 2008.
16
Table of Contents
Working capital and the ratio of current assets to current liabilities were $182,162,000 and
1.9 to 1, respectively, at June 27, 2009, compared with $238,817,000 and 2.0 to 1, respectively, at
December 27, 2008. Landstar has historically operated with current ratios within the range of 1.5
to 1 to 2.0 to 1. Cash provided by operating activities was $106,347,000 in the 2009
twenty-six-week period compared with $34,588,000 in the 2008 twenty-six-week period. The increase
in cash flow provided by operating activities was primarily attributable to the timing of
collections of receivables.
On June 27, 2008, Landstar entered into a credit agreement with a syndicate of banks and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent (the Credit Agreement). The Credit Agreement,
which expires on June 27, 2013, provides $225,000,000 of borrowing capacity in the form of a
revolving credit facility, $75,000,000 of which may be utilized in the form of letter of credit
guarantees.
The Credit Agreement contains a number of covenants that limit, among other things, the
incurrence of additional indebtedness. The Company is required to, among other things, maintain a
minimum Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio, as defined in the credit agreement, and maintain a Leverage
Ratio, as defined in the Credit Agreement, below a specified maximum. The Credit Agreement provides
for a restriction on cash dividends and other distributions to stockholders on the Companys
capital stock to the extent there is a default under the Credit Agreement. In addition, the Credit
Agreement under certain circumstances limits the amount of such cash dividends and other
distributions to stockholders in the event that after giving effect to any payment made to effect
such cash dividend or other distribution, the Leverage Ratio would exceed 2.5 to 1 on a pro forma
basis as of the end of the Companys most recently completed fiscal quarter. The Credit Agreement
provides for an event of default in the event, among other things, that a person or group acquires
25% or more of the outstanding capital stock of the Company or obtains power to elect a majority of
the Companys directors. None of these covenants are presently considered by management to be
materially restrictive to the Companys operations, capital resources or liquidity. The Company is
currently in compliance with all of the debt covenants under the Credit Agreement.
At June 27, 2009, the Company had $28,847,000 of letters of credit outstanding under the
Credit Agreement. At June 27, 2009, there was $196,153,000 available for future borrowings under
the Credit Agreement. In addition, the Company has $45,258,000 in letters of credit outstanding, as
collateral for insurance claims, that are secured by investments and cash equivalents totaling
$47,486,000. Investments, all of which are carried at fair value, consist of investment-grade
bonds having maturities of up to five years. Fair value of investments is based primarily on
quoted market prices.
Historically, the Company has generated sufficient operating cash flow to meet its debt
service requirements, fund continued growth, both internal and through acquisitions, complete or
execute share purchases of its common stock under authorized share purchase programs, pay dividends
and meet working capital needs. As a non-asset based provider of transportation capacity and
logistics services, the Companys annual capital requirements for operating property are generally
for trailing equipment and management information services equipment. In addition, a significant
portion of the trailing equipment used by the Company is provided by third party capacity
providers, thereby reducing the Companys capital requirements. During the 2009 twenty-six-week
period, the Company purchased $2,047,000 of operating property and acquired $9,793,000 of trailing
equipment by entering into capital leases. Landstar anticipates purchasing approximately $5,000,000
of operating property, primarily new trailing equipment to replace older trailing equipment, and
information technology equipment during the remainder of fiscal year 2009 either by purchase or
lease financing. In the first week of the Companys 2009 fiscal third quarter, the Company
completed the acquisitions of two supply chain transportation integration companies. Cash paid plus
net liabilities assumed for the acquisitions was approximately $32,000,000 in the aggregate. In
addition, the Company may be required to pay additional consideration to the prior owner of one of
the acquired companies that is contingent on the acquired company achieving certain levels of
earnings through December 2014.
The Company operates from its primary headquarters facility located at 13410 Sutton Park Drive
South, Jacksonville, Florida (the Facility). The Facility is leased under a lease agreement
between the Company and DRA CRT Landstar LLC, a non-related entity to the Company, as successor to
Koger Equity, Inc., dated April 30, 1998 (the Lease). The Lease provides the Company with an
option to purchase the Facility, including the land and the fixtures located thereon at a fixed
price of $21,135,000 in the first quarter of 2010 (the Purchase Option). The Company expects to
exercise the Purchase Option in the first quarter of 2010, subject to the satisfaction of certain
customary conditions under the terms of the Purchase Option. It is expected the purchase will be
funded from the Companys existing cash and cash equivalents or from available funds under the
Companys senior credit facility.
Management believes that cash flow from operations combined with the Companys borrowing
capacity under the Credit Agreement will be adequate to meet Landstars debt service requirements,
fund continued growth, both internal and through acquisitions, pay dividends, complete the
authorized share purchase programs and meet working capital needs.
17
Table of Contents
LEGAL MATTERS
As further described in periodic and current reports previously filed by the Company with the
SEC, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (the Defendants) are defendants in a suit (the
Litigation) brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the
District Court) by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and four
former BCO Independent Contractors (the Named Plaintiffs and, with OOIDA, the Plaintiffs) on
behalf of all independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the Company and its
subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements (the BCO Independent Contractors). The
Plaintiffs allege that certain aspects of the Companys motor carrier leases and related practices
with its BCO Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and seek
injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys fees.
On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief,
entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings
related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and other important elements of the
Litigation relating to liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the Appellate Court) of
certain of the District Courts rulings in favor of the Defendants. The Defendants asked the
Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with
respect to certain other rulings of the District Court.
On September 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which, among other things,
affirmed the District Courts rulings that (i) the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable
federal leasing regulations from charging administrative or other fees to BCO Independent
Contractors in connection with voluntary programs offered by the Defendants through which a BCO
Independent Contractor may purchase discounted products and services for a charge that is deducted
against the compensation payable to the BCO Independent Contractor (a Charge-back Deduction),
(ii) the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or disgorgement with respect to violations by
Defendants of the applicable federal leasing regulations but instead may recover only actual
damages, if any, which they sustained as a result of any such violations and (iii) the claims of
BCO Independent Contractors may not be handled on a class action basis for purposes of determining
the amount of actual damages, if any, they sustained as a result of any violations. Further, the
analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs
of the federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of all leases currently in use
between the Defendants and BCO Independent Contractors.
However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District Courts rulings (i) that an
old version of the lease formerly used by Defendants but not in use with any current BCO
Independent Contractor complied with applicable disclosure requirements under the federal leasing
regulations with respect to adjustments to compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on
certain loads sourced from the U. S. Department of Defense, and (ii) that the Defendants had
provided sufficient documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the applicable federal
leasing regulations relating to how the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were computed.
The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit the Plaintiffs to seek
injunctive relief with respect to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to hold
an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence of any
damages they actually sustained as a result of such violations.
Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with the Appellate Court seeking
rehearing of the Appellate Courts ruling; however, there can be no assurance that any petition for
rehearing will be granted.
Although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of the Litigation, including
any possible award of attorneys fees to the Plaintiffs, the Company believes that (i) no Plaintiff
has sustained any actual damages as a result of any violations by the Defendants of the federal
leasing regulations and (ii) injunctive relief, if any, that may be granted by the District Court
on remand is unlikely to have a material adverse financial effect on the Company.
The Company is involved in certain other claims and pending litigation arising from the normal
conduct of business. Based on knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, opinions of outside
counsel, management believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses with
respect to the resolution of all such other claims and pending litigation and that the ultimate
outcome, after provisions in respect thereof, will not have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition of the Company, but could have a material effect on the results of operations
in a given quarter or year.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
The allowance for doubtful accounts for both trade and other receivables represents
managements estimate of the amount of outstanding receivables that will not be collected. During
the first half of 2009, the Company experienced a higher level of customer bad debt expense than
experienced in any first half of any of the previous five years. Management believes this resulted
from the difficult economic environment experienced by the Companys customers. Historically,
managements estimates for uncollectible receivables have been materially correct. Although
management believes the amount of the allowance for both trade and other receivables at June 27,
2009 is appropriate, a prolonged period of low or no economic growth may adversely affect the
collection of
these receivables. Conversely, a more robust economic environment may result in the
realization of some portion of the estimated uncollectible receivables.
18
Table of Contents
Landstar provides for the estimated costs of self-insured claims primarily on an actuarial
basis. The amount recorded for the estimated liability for claims incurred is based upon the facts
and circumstances known on the applicable balance sheet date. The ultimate resolution of these
claims may be for an amount greater or less than the amount estimated by management. Historically,
the Company has experienced both favorable and unfavorable development of prior years claims
estimates. The Company continually revises its existing claim estimates as new or revised
information becomes available on the status of each claim. During the 2009 and 2008
twenty-six-week periods, insurance and claims costs included $1,875,000 and $3,598,000,
respectively, of favorable adjustments to prior years claims estimates. It is reasonably likely
that the ultimate outcome of settling all outstanding claims will be more or less than the
estimated claims reserve at June 27, 2009.
The Company utilizes certain income tax planning strategies to reduce its overall cost of
income taxes. Upon audit, it is possible that certain strategies might be disallowed resulting in
an increased liability for income taxes. Certain of these tax planning strategies result in a level
of uncertainty as to whether the related tax positions would result in a recognizable benefit. The
Company has provided for its estimated exposure attributable to certain positions that create
uncertainty in the level of income tax benefit that would ultimately be realized. Management
believes that the provision for liabilities resulting from the uncertainty in certain income tax
positions is appropriate. To date, the Company has not experienced an examination by governmental
revenue authorities that would lead management to believe that the Companys past provisions for
exposures related to the uncertainty of certain income tax positions are not appropriate.
Significant variances from managements estimates for the amount of uncollectible receivables,
the ultimate resolution of claims or the provision for uncertainty in income tax positions can be
expected to positively or negatively affect Landstars earnings in a given quarter or year.
However, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these items, given a range of
reasonably likely outcomes, will not significantly affect the long-term financial condition of
Landstar or its ability to fund its continuing operations.
EFFECTS OF INFLATION
Management does not believe inflation has had a material impact on the results of operations
or financial condition of Landstar in the past five years. However, inflation higher than that
experienced in the past five years might have an adverse effect on the Companys results of
operations.
SEASONALITY
Landstars operations are subject to seasonal trends common to the trucking industry. Results
of operations for the quarter ending in March are typically lower than the quarters ending June,
September and December.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
The following is a safe harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995. Statements contained in this document that are not based on historical facts are
forward-looking statements. This Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations and other sections of this Form 10-Q contain forward-looking statements, such
as statements which relate to Landstars business objectives, plans, strategies and expectations.
Terms such as anticipates, believes, estimates, expects, plans, predicts, may,
should, could, will, the negative thereof and similar expressions are intended to identify
forward-looking statements. Such statements are by nature subject to uncertainties and risks,
including but not limited to: an increase in the frequency or severity of accidents or other
claims; unfavorable development of existing accident claims; dependence on third party insurance
companies; dependence on independent commission sales agents; dependence on third party capacity
providers; substantial industry competition; dependence on key personnel; disruptions or failures
in our computer systems; changes in fuel taxes; status of independent contractors; a downturn in
economic growth or growth in the transportation sector; and other operational, financial or legal
risks or uncertainties detailed in Landstars Form 10-K for the 2008 fiscal year, described in Item
1A Risk Factors, this report or in Landstars other Securities and Exchange Commission filings
from time to time. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results or events to differ
materially from historical results or those anticipated. Investors should not place undue reliance
on such forward-looking statements and the Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or
revise any forward-looking statements.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
The Company is exposed to changes in interest rates as a result of its financing activities,
primarily its borrowings on the revolving credit facility, and investing activities with respect to
investments held by the insurance segment.
19
Table of Contents
On June 27, 2008, Landstar entered into a credit agreement with a syndicate of banks and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent (the Credit Agreement). The Credit Agreement,
which expires on June 27, 2013, provides $225,000,000 of borrowing capacity in the form of a
revolving credit facility, $75,000,000 of which may be utilized in the form of letter of credit
guarantees.
Borrowings under the Credit Agreement bear interest at rates equal to, at the option of the
Company, either (i) the greater of (a) the prime rate as publicly announced from time to time by
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and (b) the federal funds effective rate plus .5%, or, (ii) the rate at
the time offered to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the Eurodollar market for amounts and periods
comparable to the relevant loan plus, in either case, a margin that is determined based on the
level of the Companys Leverage Ratio, as defined in the Credit Agreement. As of June 27, 2009,
there were no borrowings outstanding on the Credit Agreement.
Long-term investments, all of which are available-for-sale, consist of investment-grade bonds
having maturities of up to five years. Assuming that the long-term portion of investments in bonds
remains at $12,827,000, the balance at June 27, 2009, a hypothetical increase or decrease in
interest rates of 100 basis points would not have a material impact on future earnings on an
annualized basis. Short-term investments consist of short-term investment-grade instruments and the
current maturities of investment-grade bonds. Accordingly, any future interest rate risk on these
short-term investments would not be material.
Assets and liabilities of the Companys Canadian operations are translated from their
functional currency to U.S. dollars using exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date and
revenue and expense accounts are translated at average monthly exchange rates during the period.
Adjustments resulting from the translation process are included in accumulated other comprehensive
income. Transactional gains and losses arising from receivable and payable balances, including
intercompany balances, in the normal course of business that are denominated in a currency other
than the functional currency of the applicable operation are recorded in such operations
statements of income when they occur. The net assets held at the Companys Canadian subsidiary at
June 27, 2009 were, as translated to U.S. dollars, less than 1% of total consolidated net assets.
Accordingly, any translation gain or loss related to the Canadian operation would not be material.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
As of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, an evaluation was
carried out, under the supervision and with the participation of the Companys management,
including the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO), of the
effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended). Based on that evaluation, the
CEO and CFO concluded that the Companys disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of
June 27, 2009, to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by the
Company in reports that it filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in
Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms.
There were no significant changes in the Companys internal controls over financial reporting
during the Companys fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2009 that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
In designing and evaluating controls and procedures, Company management recognizes that any
controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable
assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management necessarily was required to
apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.
Because of the inherent limitation in any control system, no evaluation or implementation of a
control system can provide complete assurance that all control issues and all possible instances of
fraud have been or will be detected.
PART II
OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
As further described in periodic and current reports previously filed by the Company with the
SEC, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (the Defendants) are defendants in a suit (the
Litigation) brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the
District Court) by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and four
former BCO Independent Contractors (the Named Plaintiffs and, with OOIDA, the Plaintiffs) on
behalf of all independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the Company and its
subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements (the BCO Independent Contractors). The
Plaintiffs allege that certain aspects of the Companys motor carrier leases and related practices
with its BCO
Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and seek injunctive
relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys fees.
20
Table of Contents
On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief,
entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings
related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and other important elements of the
Litigation relating to liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the Appellate Court) of
certain of the District Courts rulings in favor of the Defendants. The Defendants asked the
Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with
respect to certain other rulings of the District Court.
On September 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which, among other things,
affirmed the District Courts rulings that (i) the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable
federal leasing regulations from charging administrative or other fees to BCO Independent
Contractors in connection with voluntary programs offered by the Defendants through which a BCO
Independent Contractor may purchase discounted products and services for a charge that is deducted
against the compensation payable to the BCO Independent Contractor (a Charge-back Deduction),
(ii) the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or disgorgement with respect to violations by
Defendants of the applicable federal leasing regulations but instead may recover only actual
damages, if any, which they sustained as a result of any such violations and (iii) the claims of
BCO Independent Contractors may not be handled on a class action basis for purposes of determining
the amount of actual damages, if any, they sustained as a result of any violations. Further, the
analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs
of the federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of all leases currently in use
between the Defendants and BCO Independent Contractors.
However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District Courts rulings (i) that an
old version of the lease formerly used by Defendants but not in use with any current BCO
Independent Contractor complied with applicable disclosure requirements under the federal leasing
regulations with respect to adjustments to compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on
certain loads sourced from the U. S. Department of Defense, and (ii) that the Defendants had
provided sufficient documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the applicable federal
leasing regulations relating to how the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were computed.
The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit the Plaintiffs to seek
injunctive relief with respect to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to hold
an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence of any
damages they actually sustained as a result of such violations.
Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with the Appellate Court seeking
rehearing of the Appellate Courts ruling; however, there can be no assurance that any petition for
rehearing will be granted.
Although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of the Litigation, including
any possible award of attorneys fees to the Plaintiffs, the Company believes that (i) no Plaintiff
has sustained any actual damages as a result of any violations by the Defendants of the federal
leasing regulations and (ii) injunctive relief, if any, that may be granted by the District Court
on remand is unlikely to have a material adverse financial effect on the Company.
The Company is involved in certain other claims and pending litigation arising from the normal
conduct of business. Based on knowledge of the facts and, in certain cases, opinions of outside
counsel, management believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses with
respect to the resolution of all such other claims and pending litigation and that the ultimate
outcome, after provisions in respect thereof, will not have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition of the Company, but could have a material effect on the results of operations
in a given quarter or year.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Acquired businesses and potential acquisitions. On July 2, 2009, the Company announced the
acquisition of two supply chain transportation integration companies. The Company intends to
continue to evaluate and selectively pursue acquisitions that it believes are strategically
important based on the potential that any such acquisition candidates would further strengthen the
Companys service offerings, information technology platform and customer base and would generate
additional revenue and earnings growth. The Company makes no assurance that the Company will be
able to successfully complete the integration of the businesses that have recently been acquired or
successfully integrate any businesses that the Company might acquire in the future. If the Company
fails to do so, or if the Company does so but at greater cost than anticipated, or if the acquired
businesses experience earnings growth significantly below those anticipated, the Companys
financial results may be adversely affected.
For additional discussion identifying risk factors and other important factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated, see the discussions under Part I,
Item 1A, Risk Factors in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 27, 2008, and in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
of Operations and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in this Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q.
21
Table of Contents
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Company
The following table provides information regarding the Companys purchases of its common stock
during the period from March 29, 2009 to June 27, 2009, the Companys second fiscal quarter:
Total Number of Shares | Maximum Number of | |||||||||||||||
Purchased as Part of | Shares That May Yet | |||||||||||||||
Total Number of | Average Price Paid | Publicly Announced | Be Purchased Under | |||||||||||||
Fiscal Period | Shares Purchased | Per Share | Programs | the Programs | ||||||||||||
March 28, 2009 |
2,608,982 | |||||||||||||||
Mar.
29, 2009 Apr. 25, 2009 |
2,608,982 | |||||||||||||||
Apr.
26, 2009 May 23, 2009 |
52,782 | $ | 34.54 | 52,782 | 2,556,200 | |||||||||||
May 24, 2009 June 27, 2009 |
2,556,200 | |||||||||||||||
Total |
52,782 | $ | 34.54 | 52,782 | ||||||||||||
On July 16, 2008, Landstar System, Inc. announced that it had been authorized by its Board of
Directors to purchase up to an additional 2,000,000 shares of its common stock from time to time in
the open market and in privately negotiated transactions. On January 28, 2009, Landstar System,
Inc. announced that it had been authorized by its Board of Directors to purchase up to an
additional 1,569,377 shares of its common stock from time to time in the open market and in
privately negotiated transactions. No specific expiration date has been assigned to either the July
16, 2008 or January 28, 2009 authorizations.
During the twenty-six-week period ended June 27, 2009, Landstar paid dividends as follows:
Dividend Amount | Declaration | Record | Payment | |||
per share | Date | Date | Date | |||
$0.04
|
January 27, 2009 | February 6, 2009 | February 27, 2009 | |||
$0.04
|
April 14, 2009 | May 7, 2009 | May 29, 2009 |
On June 27, 2008, Landstar entered into a credit agreement with a syndicate of banks and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent (the Credit Agreement). The Credit Agreement
provides for a restriction on cash dividends and other distributions to stockholders on the
Companys capital stock to the extent there is a default under the Credit Agreement. In addition,
the Credit Agreement, under certain circumstances, limits the amount of such cash dividends and
other distributions to stockholders in the event that, after giving effect to any payment made to
effect such cash dividend or other distribution, the Leverage Ratio, as defined in the Credit
Agreement, would exceed 2.5 to 1 on a pro forma basis as of the end of the Companys most recently
completed fiscal quarter.
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities
None.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
On April 30, 2009, Landstar System, Inc. (LSI) held its Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the
Meeting) at its offices in Jacksonville, FL. The matters voted upon at the Meeting included (i)
the election of one Class I director whose term will expire at the 2012 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders, (ii) ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as LSIs independent registered
public accounting firm for fiscal year 2009, and (iii) the approval of an amendment to the
Companys 2002 Employee Stock Option Plan, in the form of the Amended and Restated 2002 Employee
Stock Option and Stock Incentive Plan.
With respect to the election of one Class I director at the Meeting, nominee Henry H. Gerkens
was elected to the Board of Directors of LSI. Mr. Gerkens received 48,395,379 votes for election to
the Board and 1,059,799 votes were withheld.
With respect to the second matter voted on at the Meeting, the proposal to ratify the
appointment of KPMG LLP as LSIs independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2009
was approved by LSIs stockholders. Votes cast for the proposal were 48,970,823, votes cast against
were 466,353 and votes abstaining were 18,003.
22
Table of Contents
With respect to the third matter voted on at the Meeting, the proposal to approve the
amendment to the 2002 Employee Stock Option plan was approved by LSIs stockholders. Votes cast for
the proposal were 39,710,695, votes cast against were 6,999,550 and votes abstaining were 782,813.
Item 5. Other Information
None.
Item 6. Exhibits
The exhibits listed on the Exhibit Index are furnished as part of this quarterly report on Form
10-Q.
23
Table of Contents
EXHIBIT INDEX
Registrants Commission File No.: 0-21238
Exhibit No. | Description | |
(31)
|
Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: | |
31.1*
|
Chief Executive Officer certification, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
31.2*
|
Chief Financial Officer certification, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
(32)
|
Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: | |
32.1**
|
Chief Executive Officer certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
32.2**
|
Chief Financial Officer certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
* | Filed herewith | |
** | Furnished herewith |
24
Table of Contents
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC. |
||||
Date: July 31, 2009 | /s/ Henry H. Gerkens | |||
Henry H. Gerkens | ||||
President and Chief Executive Officer | ||||
Date: July 31, 2009 | /s/ James B. Gattoni | |||
James B. Gattoni | ||||
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | ||||
25