Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("COCO" or the Company) is a publicly traded, for-profit education company headquartered in Santa Ana, CA. COCO operates a total of 105 campuses in 25 states, along with an online division, and offers diploma and degree programs in health care, business, criminal justice, transportation technology and maintenance, construction trades, and information technology.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5. As alleged by the Complaint, at approximately 10:46 a.m. on December 5, 2003, the market price of COCO fell precipitously from $57.45 to as low as $38.97 per share within 12 minutes. At 10:58 a.m., Nasdaq halted trading in COCO, stating that the plunge was caused by "misuse or malfunction" of an electronic trading system. Nasdaq permitted trading to resume approximately one hour later at 11:55 a.m. When COCO reopened at 11:55 a.m., the price of the stock recovered quickly. Approximately 30 minutes after trading in COCO resumed, Nasdaq belatedly announced that it would cancel all trades in COCO made between 10:46 a.m. and 10:58:08 a.m. At no time prior to approximately 12:30 p.m. did Nasdaq inform investors that it would cancel all trades in COCO between 10:46 a.m. and 10:58:08 a.m. Therefore, during the period between the time COCO resumed trading at 11:55 a.m. and the time Nasdaq announced the cancellation of such trades at approximately 12:30 p.m., investors made trading decisions in reliance on Nasdaq's statement that trading had resumed and without knowing that Nasdaq had decided to cancel the trades between 10:46 a.m. and 10:58:08 a.m. Nasdaq's
belated cancellation of such trades caused injury to investors who traded COCO securities between 10:46 a.m. and approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 5, 2003.

NOTE: The action was filed on behalf of all persons who traded the stock of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. between 10:46 a.m. and approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 5, 2003 (the "Class Period").

On February 2, 2004, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the FRCP. On May 6, 2004, the Court entered the Memorandum and Opinion # 90054 granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the Memorandum and Opinion.

On May 26, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Judgment of the District Court. On June 22, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued the Mandate and the case was closed.