Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-31 | 2026-02-26 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · For open litigation, unless otherwise noted, Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome or ultimate resolution of these matters. MTBE Litigation In December 2017, the state of Maryland filed suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court against Duke Energy Merchants and other defendants alleging contamination of state waters by MTBE leaking from gasoline storage tanks and is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages. MTBE is a gasoline additive intended to increase the oxygen levels in gasoline and make it burn cleaner. The case was removed from Baltimore City Circuit Court to federal District Court. In December 2020, the plaintiff and defendants selected 50 focus sites, none of which had any ties to Duke Energy Merchants. In November 2025, Duke Energy Merchants entered into a settlement agreement with the state of Maryland, which included the payment of an immaterial amount to resolve the litigation. Once this matter is dismissed, it will be fully resolved. The Town of Carrboro Litigation On December 4, 2024, the town of Carrboro, North Carolina, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy in the North Carolina Superior Court, Orange County, alleging that Duke Energy and its predecessor compan… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, management concluded that its internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-27 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · In December 2017, the state of Maryland filed suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court against Duke Energy Merchants and other defendants alleging contamination of state waters by MTBE leaking from gasoline storage tanks and is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages. MTBE is a gasoline additive intended to increase the oxygen levels in gasoline and make it burn cleaner. The case was removed from Baltimore City Circuit Court to federal District Court. Initial motions to dismiss filed by the defendants were denied by the court in September 2019, and the matter is now in discovery. In December 2020, the plaintiff and defendants selected 50 focus sites, none of which have any ties to Duke Energy Merchants. Discovery will be specific to those sites. At this time, Duke Energy Merchants has not engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not reached a settlement agreement with any defendant. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter. The Town of Carrboro Litigation On December 4, 2024, the town of Carrboro, North Carolina, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy in the North Carolina Superior Court, Orange County, alleging that Duke Energy an… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, management concluded that its internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2024. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-23 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · MTBE Litigation On December 15, 2017, the state of Maryland filed suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court against Duke Energy Merchants and other defendants alleging contamination of state waters by MTBE leaking from gasoline storage tanks and is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages. MTBE is a gasoline additive intended to increase the oxygen levels in gasoline and make it burn cleaner. The case was removed from Baltimore City Circuit Court to federal District Court. Initial motions to dismiss filed by the defendants were denied by the court on September 4, 2019, and the matter is now in discovery. On December 18, 2020, the plaintiff and defendants selected 50 focus sites, none of which have any ties to Duke Energy Merchants. Discovery will be specific to those sites. At this time, Duke Energy Merchants has not engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not reached a settlement agreement with any defendant. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants are, from time to time, parties to various lawsuits and regulatory proceedings in the ordinary course of their business. For information reg… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, management concluded that its internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2023. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-02-27 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · MTBE Litigation On December 15, 2017, the state of Maryland filed suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court against Duke Energy Merchants and other defendants alleging contamination of state waters by MTBE leaking from gasoline storage tanks and is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages. MTBE is a gasoline additive intended to increase the oxygen levels in gasoline and make it burn cleaner. The case was removed from Baltimore City Circuit Court to federal District Court. Initial motions to dismiss filed by the defendants were denied by the court on September 4, 2019, and the matter is now in discovery. On December 18, 2020, the plaintiff and defendants selected 50 focus sites, none of which have any ties to Duke Energy Merchants. Discovery will be specific to those sites. At this time, Duke Energy Merchants has not engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not reached a settlement agreement with any defendant. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In addition, the Duke Energy Registrants are, from time to time, parties to various lawsuits and regulatory proceedings in the ordinary course of their business. For information reg… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, management concluded that its internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2022. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-02-24 | in the notes | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · For information regarding legal proceedings, including regulatory and environmental matters, see Note 3, “Regulatory Matters,” and Note 4, “Commitments and Contingencies,” to the Consolidated Financial Statements. MTBE Litigation On December 15, 2017, the state of Maryland filed suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court against Duke Energy Merchants and other defendants alleging contamination of state waters by MTBE leaking from gasoline storage tanks. MTBE is a gasoline additive intended to increase the oxygen levels in gasoline and make it burn cleaner. The case was removed from Baltimore City Circuit Court to federal District Court. Initial motions to dismiss filed by the defendants were denied by the court on September 4, 2019, and the matter is now in discovery. On December 18, 2020, the plaintiff and defendants selected 50 focus sites, none of which have any ties to Duke Energy Merchants. Discovery will be specific to those sites. At this time, Duke Energy Merchants has not engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not reached a settlement agreement with any defendant. Duke Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, management concluded that its internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2021. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.