January 9, 2012 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.
April 22, 2010 - The lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

March 31, 2010 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.

July 24, 2009 - The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

June 19, 2009 - The court approved two motions to withdraw by two plaintiffs and substituted and appointed new lead plaintiffs.

May 22, 2009 - The lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint.

February 27, 2009 - The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

December 10, 2008 - The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.

October 31, 2008 - The lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed and all cases were consolidated.

May 27, 2008 - A lead plaintiff motion was filed.

March 25, 2008 - An investor in securities of Merrill Lynch & Co (NYSE: MER) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Merrill Lynch & Co over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between March 25, 2003 and February 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch & Co 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 alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, Merrill Lynch & Co 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 Merrill Lynch & Co 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 Merrill Lynch & Co to “withdraw their support” for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch & Co 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 Merrill Lynch and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) Merrill Lynch 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) Merrill Lynch 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.