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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT