NEW YORK, Sept. 3, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against The PetroChina Company Ltd. ("PetroChina" or the "Company") (NYSE: PTR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 13-cv-6180, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of PetroChina between April 26, 2012 and August 27, 2013 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased PetroChina securities during the Class Period, you have until November 2, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at firstname.lastname@example.org or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. PetroChina is China's largest oil and gas producer and distributor, playing a dominant role in the oil and gas industry in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and financial performance. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's senior officials were in non-compliance with the Company's corporate governance directives and code of ethics; (2) as a result, the Company was subject to investigation and disciplinary action by various governmental and regulatory authorities; (3) the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading as they contained direct references to the Company's Code of Ethics, and statements regarding its compliance with regulations and internal governance policies; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.