Duke Energy Corporation DUK Securities Lawsuit

Company:	Duke Energy Corporation
Ticker Symbol:	DUK
Class Period:	Jun-28-12 to Jul-9-12
Date Filed:	Jul-27-12
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:	Sep-25-12
Court:	Eastern District of North Carolina
Allegations:

New York, NY: A securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of former Progress Energy Inc. (NYSE: PGN) ("Progress") shareholders whose common stock was exchanged for shares of Duke Energy Corporation (NYSE: DUK) ("Duke"or the "Company"), in connection with the Company' merger with Progress (the "Merger"), and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Duke common stock between June 28, 2012 and July 9, 2012 (the "Class Period"), inclusive.

The Complaint charges Duke and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Duke is an energy and utilities company based in Charlotte, North Carolina and is headed by James E. Rogers ("Rogers"). Prior to the Merger, Progress was an energy and utilities company headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, and was headed by William D. Johnson ("Johnson"). The Merger ultimately created the largest electric utility in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that Rogers, not Johnson, would serve as the CEO of the combined Company after the Merger; (2) Defendants had obtained approval of the Merger from the Progress Board of Directors by failing to disclose that Rogers would act as the CEO of the combined Company.

On January 8, 2011 a merger agreement was executed between Duke and Progress (the "Merger Agreement"). The Merger Agreement was attached to the Prospectus Materials. The Merger Agreement unequivocally represented that "Duke' Board of Directors shall cause [Mr. Johnson] to be appointed as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke." The Prospectus Materials similarly represented that, after the Merger, "Mr. Johnson will serve as the president and chief executive officer of Duke Energy and Mr. Rogers will serve as the executive chairman of the board of directors of Duke Energy.

The July 7, 2011 Prospectus Materials omitted facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with applicable SEC rules and regulations. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that: (i) Rogers, not Mr. Johnson, would serve as the CEO of the combined Company after the Merger; (ii) Defendants had obtained approval for the Merger from the Progress Board of Directors and shareholders by failing to disclose that Rogers would act as the CEO of the combined Company; and (iii) Defendants misled the NCUC and others to gain regulatory approval of the Merger by failing to timely disclose Mr. Johnson' ouster to the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Had Duke violated the Merger Agreement by revealing the true facts about Mr. Johnson, Duke would have been forced to pay a termination fee of $675 million.

In addition, from May 4, 2012 through June 29, 2012, Duke filed numerous Prospectus Updates on Forms 425 with the SEC that "urge[d] investors and shareholders to read the Registration Statement, including the joint proxy statement/prospectus that is a part of the Registration Statement … because they contain important information." Defendants therefore caused shareholders to rely upon the same Prospectus Materials that, during this same period, Defendants knew contained misleading statements and omitted material facts about Mr. Johnson' role as CEO of the combined Duke. Defendants also failed to advise the Progress Board about their plan to oust Mr. Johnson upon consummation of the Merger.

On July 3, 2012, Duke issued a press release, in contradiction to previous representations, indicating that Rogers was appointed president and chief executive officer of the combined company and that Johnson resigned by mutual agreement. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Duke common stock fell.

If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than the Lead Plaintiff Deadline shown above, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.

Duke Energy Corporation DUK Securities Fraud Legal Help

If you have suffered from financial losses, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible Duke Energy Corporation securities class action lawsuit. Please click the link below to submit your complaint for a free evaluation.
If you are a current or former employee of this company and have 401(k) shares, please use this form to register your complaint.

Published on Jul-30-12