IBJNews

Legal drama over Duke Energy merger lingers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The investigations into whether regulators and consumers were misled in the run-up to the merger of North Carolina's two Fortune 500 energy companies could continue quietly for months after a deadline arrives next week.

North Carolina utilities regulators and the state's attorney general have demanded internal documents and other evidence by Aug. 7 involving Duke Energy Corp. and its surprise decision to change a key detail of its Progress Energy Inc. takeover even as regulators were considering approval.

The utilities commission plans to hire an outside law firm to review the documents to see whether it was misled when it approved the takeover June 29. The companies completed their merger July 2. About two hours later, Duke Energy's board of directors voted to oust the CEO they'd officially appointed, former Progress CEO Bill Johnson.

North Carolina's utilities commission can revoke its earlier approval of the merger or set new conditions, potentially including requiring Duke Energy to find a new CEO to replace top executive Jim Rogers.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy Cooper said Duke Energy is cooperating with its document demand. Prosecutors also are seeking documents from the New York crisis communications firm Duke Energy directors hired and the Indianapolis investment firm run by Duke Energy director Michael Browning, who has been a director of companies led by Rogers for two decades.

Browning has already testified regarding his involvement in the CEO's ouster.

The commission's review could take months, or Duke Energy could take the very strong suggestion of the regulatory body's chairman and offer settlement terms.

The company isn't saying whether it's looking for a quick end to the controversy that this week led credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's to lower Duke Energy's credit rating, citing the utility's lack of transparency and the consequences of dropping Johnson.

"We are not commenting on any potential private meetings we may have related to this issue," Duke Energy spokesman Tom Williams said.

The investigations complicate the already tricky effort to mesh operations without affecting service to Charlotte-based Duke Energy's 7.1 million residential and business customers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Florida.

As a legal monopoly provider of electricity, North Carolina regulators limit how much Duke Energy can charge its 3.2 million customers in the state. The regulators can order electricity prices down if profits rise above a set return level, or they can allow rates to rise for a number of reasons including fuel costs and company investments in generating power. The company plans to seek rate increases in North Carolina this year.

Dumping Johnson after stating for a year and a half that he'd run the combined Duke Energy increases the risk "that the company may not be able to realize timely and constructive regulatory outcomes in North Carolina and Florida, two of its largest jurisdictions," S&P credit analyst Dimitri Nikas wrote last week.

If Duke Energy can't or won't settle the issues created by switching CEOs, the doubts could linger for weeks or months. Morningstar analyst Andrew Bischof expects a long delay until a resolution is reached as regulators look into whether they were duped by corporate insiders.

"I wouldn't think they'd want to enter into settlement talks until they got an idea what was in the materials that they requested," he said Friday.

The last time the commission launched a similar investigation, it hired outside auditors who took nine months to comb through Duke's books. They found Duke underreported profits by $124 million over three years. Duke paid $25 million in a settlement that included no admission of wrongdoing.

The company also paid for the costs of the audit, said Sam Watson, the commission's top attorney.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

ADVERTISEMENT