February 16, 2012 - The parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the appeal and the court granted the stipulation.
April 29, 2011 - The lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

March 31, 2011 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.

April 22, 2010 - The lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

March 18, 2010 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

March 12, 2009 - One of the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims against the defendants.

December 18, 2008 - The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

June 11, 2008 - The lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed.

June 2, 2008 - A lead plaintiff motion was filed.

April 2, 2008 - An investor in shares of E*Trade Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: ETFC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against E*Trade Financial Corporation over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between April 2, 2003 and February 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that E*TRADE Financial 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.

The complaint specifically alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, E*Trade Financial Corporation offered and sold auction rate securities to the publicas 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 E*Trade Financial 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 to “withdraw their support” for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set.

The plaintiff alleges that E*Trade Financial 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 broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) E*Trade Financial Corporation continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that 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.