Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/20/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: May 23, 2002

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, by late 2003, the two federal courts had dismissed all 17 lawsuits. Plaintiffs in the New York cases appealed the dismissal order to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 15, 2004, appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the New York cases.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For Quarter Ended September 30, 2003, since April 2002, 17 shareholder class-action lawsuits have been filed against Duke Energy: 13 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and four in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The class-action lawsuits and the threatened shareholder derivative claims arise out of allegations that Duke Energy improperly engaged in “round trip” trades which resulted in an alleged overstatement of revenues over a three-year period. The plaintiffs seek recovery of an unstated amount of compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs for alleged violations of securities laws. The 13 lawsuits pending in New York were consolidated into one action and included as co-defendants Duke Energy executives and two investment banking firms. In December 2002, the New York court granted in all respects the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. On September 17, 2003, the New York court issued a written opinion indicating that the court’s prior ruling constitutes a dismissal with prejudice, such that the plaintiffs are not allowed to re-plead their case. Plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal order to the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals.The four lawsuits pending in North Carolina name as co-defendants Duke Energy executives. Two of the four North Carolina suits were consolidated. This consolidated case involved claims under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act relating to Duke Energy’s Retirement Savings Plan. This consolidated action named Duke Energy board members as co-defendants. In late June 2003, the federal court in North Carolina dismissed with prejudice the consolidated ERISA-based action. The plaintiffs initially appealed the dismissal, but later dismissed the appeal. All but two of the original 17 shareholder suits now have been dismissed. Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the remaining two cases and a stipulation seeking this dismissal has been filed with the North Carolina federal court. In addition, Duke Energy has received three shareholder derivative notices demanding that it commence litigation against named executives and directors of Duke Energy for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and insider trading. Duke Energy’s response to the derivative demands is not required until 90 days after receipt of written notice requesting a response. No request for a response has been received to date.

The original complaint alleges that Duke failed to disclose that it was engaging in electricity trades involving simultaneous purchases and sales of power at the same price, overstated Duke's revenues in its public SEC filings and elsewhere by including in such revenues sums received in connection with such simultaneous purchases and sales of power, and failed to disclose that Duke did not have in place sufficient management controls to prevent Duke's traders from engaging in simultaneous purchases and sales of power at the same price. The complaint further alleges that Deloitte & Touche violated the common law by certifying Duke's financial statements and by allowing its unqualified opinion to be incorporated by reference into Duke's filings with the SEC despite the fact that such financial statements and filings were materially misleading in that they materially overstated Duke's revenues by counting as revenue sums received in connection with simultaneous purchases and sales of power at the same price. After the foregoing became known to the public, the complaint alleges, Duke stock tumbled to as low as $32.89 on May 21, 2002, down from a class period high of $47.74.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Utilities
Industry: Electric Utilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DUK
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 02-CV-3960
JUDGE: Hon. Jed S. Rakoff
DATE FILED: 05/23/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/02/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/17/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  3. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
    299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, NY 10171
    212.894.7200 212.894.7272 · info@entwistle-law.com
  4. Keller Rohrback LLP (Seattle)
    1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Keller Rohrback LLP (Seattle), WA 98101-3052
    800.776.6044 206.623.3384 · investor@kellerrohrback.com
  5. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  8. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 02-CV-3960
JUDGE: Hon. Jed S. Rakoff
DATE FILED: 09/20/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/02/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/17/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  3. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
    299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, NY 10171
    212.894.7200 212.894.7272 · info@entwistle-law.com
  4. Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
    60 Park Avenue, 21st Floor, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., NY 10022
    212.838.3221 · gray@cjgraylaw.com
  5. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
  6. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  7. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  8. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date