This account is pending registration confirmation. Please click on the link within the confirmation email previously sent you to complete registration. Need a new registration confirmation email? Click here
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of all persons who (i) purchased the common stock of Duke Energy Corporation (“Duke Energy” or the “Company”) (NYSE: DUK) between June 11, 2012 and July 9, 2012, inclusive (“Class Period”), (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired Duke Energy common stock pursuant to the Company’s July 7, 2011 Prospectus and Registration Statement (“Prospectus”), and (iii) exchanged shares of Progress Energy, Inc. (“Progress”) common stock for shares of Duke Energy stock in connection with the merger with Progress (“Merger”).
If you purchased Duke Energy common stock during the Class Period or pursuant to Duke Energy’s July 7, 2011 Prospectus, or exchanged shares of Progress common stock for shares of Duke Energy stock in connection with the Merger, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than September 24, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Duke Energy shareholders who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at (800) 541-7358.
Background on the Duke Energy Securities Class Litigation
The complaints allege 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 Duke Energy CEO James E. Rogers (“Rogers”), not Progress CEO William D. Johnson (“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.