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.
On January 10, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress issued a joint press release announcing a merger agreement executed between Duke and Progress on January 8, 2011 (the “Merger Agreement”). The Merger Agreement was attached to the July 7, 2011 Prospectus Materials. The Merger Agreement clearly represented that “Duke’s 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 North Carolina Utilities Commission (“NCUC”) and others to gain regulatory approval of the Merger by failing to timely disclose Mr. Johnson's ouster to the NCUC.In addition, from May 4, 2012 through June 29, 2012, Duke Energy filed numerous Prospectus Updates on Forms 425 with the SEC which “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 hence 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's role as CEO of the combined Duke Energy. 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 Energy 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 Energy common stock declined. For more information on the Duke Energy securities class litigation, click here. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.
Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last nine consecutive years.For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.