Lieff Cabraser Reminds Duke Energy Corporation Investors Of Upcoming Deadline In Class Action Lawsuit

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the September 24, 2012 deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the securities class action against Duke Energy Corporation (“Duke Energy” or the “Company”) (NYSE: DUK), brought on behalf of all persons who (i) purchased the common stock of Duke Energy 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”), or (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 stock for 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 1 [phone].

The complaints allege that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented: (1) that Duke Energy CEO James Rogers (“Rogers”), not Progress CEO William 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 CEO of the combined Company, and (3) Defendants misled the North Carolina Utilities Commission and others to gain regulatory approval of the Merger by failing to timely disclose Johnson’s ouster.

1 2 Next › Last »