Edison International

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Edison International (NYSE: EIX)

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Edison International (“Edison” or the “Company”) (NYSE: EIX) between July 31, 2014 and June 24, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Edison during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Edison, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) Edison’s ex parte contacts with the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) decision makers were more extensive than the Company had reported to CPUC; (2) that belated disclosure of Edison’s ex parte contacts with CPUC personnel would jeopardize the Company’s $3.3 billion settlement with the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (“SONGS”); and (3) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on June 22, 2015, the law firm Strumwasser & Woocher released an independent report commissioned by the CPUC in connection with a review of ex parte meetings between utility lobbyists or executives and CPUC decision makers.  The report described such ex parte meetings as “frequent, pervasive, and at least sometimes outcome-determinative,” and recommended banning them altogether in rate cases.

Then, on June 24, 2015, in response to the report and earlier disclosures by Edison’s largest subsidiary, Southern California Edison (“SCE”), the Utility Reform Network (“TURN”) filed an application with the CPUC that charged SCE with “fraud by concealment” and urged the CPUC to set aside the SONGS settlement and reopen its investigation.

On this news, shares in Edison, which traded as high as $69.59 during the Class Period, closed at $56.00 per share on June 25, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 4, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.