January 4, 2012 - The case was voluntarily dismissed.

February 24, 2011 -The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

June 1, 2010 - A motion to dismiss the case and individual complaint was filed.

May 4, 2010 - A consolidated class action and individual complaint was filed. 

September 9, 2009 - A motion to dismiss was filed second amended complaint was filed.

August 26, 2009 - A new lead plaintiff was appointed.

July 9, 2009 - The court granted the motion to withdraw and substitute the lead plaintiff.

June 9, 2009 - A motion to withdraw and substitute lead plaintiff was filed.

May 12, 2009 - A second amended complaint was filed.

March 13, 2009 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.

February 12, 2009 - The court ordered a transfer of three actions into a multi-district lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

January 22, 2009 - An amended complaint was filed.

October 23, 2008 - Another investor filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

October 21, 2008 - Another investor filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

June 23, 2008 - An investor filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. May 22, 2008 - An investor in auction rate securities of Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Bank of America Corporation over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws.

The complaint alleges that Bank of America Corporation failed to disclose the following material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the class: (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because Bank of America Corporation and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) Bank of America Corporation and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) Bank of America Corporation continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that it and other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a “freeze” of the market for auction rate securities would result.

The complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, Bank of America Corporation offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the complaint, holders of auction rate securities sold by Bank of America Corporation and other broker-dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers including Bank of America Corporation to “withdraw their support” for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set. The complaint alleges that Bank of America Corporation violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic “auctions.” Auction rate securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.