Exhibit 77D

Effective June 15, 2007, the principal investment strategies
of Columbia Acorn Select (the Fund), a series of Columbia
Acorn Trust, were revised to (i) increase the number of
companies in which the Fund may invest to generally 30 to 60,
and (ii) permit the Fund to invest up to 33% of its assets,
valued at the time of investment, in companies based outside
the United States in developed markets (for example, Japan,
Canada and the United Kingdom) and emerging markets (for
example, Mexico, Brazil and Korea).  Also, the principal
investment risks of the Fund were revised to reflect that
the Fund may not operate as a non-diversified fund at all
times.

These changes did not require shareholder approval and were
the subjects of prospectus supplements filed with the
Commission on June 15, 2007.

1

857875/D/2
857875/D/2


Exhibit 77E Legal Proceedings

I	Vogeler v. Columbia Acorn Trust, et al., No. 03 L 1550,
Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill.
On November 13, 2003, the above-captioned lawsuit was filed
against Columbia Acorn Trust (CAT) and Columbia Wanger
Asset Management, L.P. (CWAM), in the Circuit Court of the
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois (Madison
County), seeking certification of a plaintiff class consisting
of all persons in the United States who held shares in Columbia
Acorn International (Acorn International) for a period of more
than 14 days during the five years prior to and through the
filing of the lawsuit. The Vogeler complaint is pleaded in two
counts and alleges, in summary, that CWAM and CAT exposed long-term
shareholders of Acorn International to trading by market timers
by allegedly:  (a) failing to properly evaluate daily whether a
significant event affecting the value of Acorn Internationals
portfolio securities had occurred after foreign markets had closed
but before the calculation of Acorn Internationals net asset value
(NAV); (b) failing to implement Acorn Internationals portfolio
valuation and share pricing policies and procedures; (c) allowing
portfolio valuation and share pricing policies and procedures that
benefited market timers at the expense of long-term shareholders;
and (d) failing to know and implement applicable rules and
regulations concerning the calculation of NAV.  Count I of the
Complaint alleges that the defendants breached duties of care
owed to Acorn International shareholders, and Count II alleges
that the asserted breaches were willful and wanton.  Both counts
of the Complaint seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.

On December 12, 2003, the defendants removed the Vogeler case to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, Case No. 03-cv-843.  On February 12, 2004, the federal
district court remanded the case back to the Illinois state court
in Madison County.  The defendants filed a timely appeal of the
remand order. On April 5, 2005 the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit (the Seventh Circuit) issued an Opinion
in several fair value pricing cases, including Vogeler.  The
Seventh Circuit reversed the federal district courts remand of
those cases to state court, holding that the plaintiffs state law
claims were preempted by federal law under the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA).  The Seventh Circuit
remanded the cases, including Vogeler, to the district courts with
instructions to undo the remand orders and dismiss the plaintiffs
complaints with prejudice.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion
with the district court to amend the Vogeler complaint to plead
around the Seventh Circuits federal preemption ruling.  However,
consistent with the mandate, the federal district court denied
plaintiffs motion to amend and dismissed the Vogeler complaint
with prejudice.  Plaintiffs then filed a writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal the Seventh
Circuits decision.  The writ challenged whether the district courts
remand of the case to state court was reviewable by the Seventh Circuit
on appeal (the jurisdictional issue) and whether plaintiffs claims
were federally preempted under SLUSA because they alleged misconduct
in connection with the purchase or sale of securities (the
substantive issue).  The Seventh Circuits decision of SLUSA
preclusion created a conflict with the Second Circuits decision in
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit (Dabit).
On January 6, 2006, the Supreme Court granted review of the appellate
jurisdiction issue and, given the pendency of the Dabit appeal, held
the appeal of the substantive SLVSA preclusion issue.  On June 15,
2006, the Supreme Court held that the Seventh Circuit did not have
appellate jurisdiction to review the district courts remand order,
and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit which, in turn,
dismissed the appeals and remanded the case to state court.
The parties have entered into an agreement in principle to settle
all claims against the Columbia Defendants, including CAT and CWAM,
which must be approved by the Court.  The terms and provisions of the
proposed agreement are confidential.  In light of the agreement in
principle, the state court has stayed all proceedings in the Vogeler case.

II	Cohen v. FleetBoston Financial Corporation, et al.,
No. 04-cv-11704, U.S. Dist. Ct. Mass.; Osburn v. FleetBoston Financial
Corporation, et al., No. 04-cv-11750, U.S. Dist. Ct. Mass.; Simmonds,
et al. v. FleetBoston Financial Corporation, et al., No. 04-cv-11953,
U.S. Dist. Ct. Mass.; Slicker v. FleetBoston Financial Corporation,
et al., No. 04-cv-11760, U.S. Dist. Ct. Mass. Four lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts are hybrid
class and derivative actions naming, among others, the various series of
CAT (the Funds) as nominal defendants, and the CAT Trustees as
defendants.  Those cases were later consolidated in the Massachusetts
federal district court under the caption In re: Columbia Entities
Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-11704, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the various
investment advisers within Columbia Management Group utilized Fund assets
to pay broker-dealers to recommend and sell the Funds in preference to
other mutual funds, thereby increasing the assets under management and
resultant fees to CWAM and affiliated advisors.  The class claims assert
violations of Sections 34(a), 36(a), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (ICA), and for common law breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment.  The derivative claim alleges a violation of
Sections 206 and 215 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (IAA).
Plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, rescission
of CWAMs contract with the Funds and recovery of all fees paid to CWAM
by the Funds, as well as attorneys fees and costs. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended compliant.  On November 30, 2005,
the federal district court granted the motion and dismissed all the claims.
Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit on December 29, 2005.  While the appeal to
the First Circuit was pending, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle all claims against the Columbia defendants, including the Funds
and the CAT trustees, which must be approved by the Court.  The terms and
provisions of the proposed agreement are confidential.

III	In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, No. 04-MDL-1586; U.S.
Dist. Ct. Md. Commencing in late 2003, several class action and derivative
lawsuits were filed in federal district courts naming, among others, CAT and
the Trustees of CAT, challenging the existence of consensual market timing
arrangements, frequent trading and late trading.  In September 2003, motions
were filed by various mutual fund defendants seeking to centralize or
consolidate all actions filed in federal district courts involving market
timing-related allegations into one multidistrict (MDL) proceeding.
On February 20, 2004, an Order was entered transferring all federal
district court cases involving market timing-related allegations to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On September 29,
2004, plaintiffs in the class action track filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint in the Multi-District Litigation styled Dukes,
et al. v. Columbia Acorn Funds, et al., Case No. 04-cv-01763, which
names as defendants CAT, and Ralph Wanger and Charles McQuaid as
interested Trustees of CAT.  The independent CAT Trustees are not named
as defendants (although certain independent trustees of the Columbia
Funds trusts are named).  Also on September 29, 2004, plaintiffs in the
derivative actions brought on behalf of shareholders in numerous fund
complexes filed a consolidated amended derivative action complaint
styled Slaybe, et al. v. Columbia Management Advisers, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04-cv-1768, which names CAT and Columbia Acorn Fund as
nominal defendants and the ten CAT Trustees as defendants.
Judge J. Frederick Motz is assigned to the Columbia track.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
class action and derivative action complaints.  Ultimately, Judge
Motz issued Orders dismissing all claims against the Funds and the
independent trustees. As indicated in Section I above, the parties have
entered into an agreement in principle to settle all claims against the
Columbia Defendants, including the Funds and the CAT Trustees, which
must be approved by the Court.  The terms and provisions of the proposed
agreement are confidential.  In light of the agreement in principle,
Judge Motz has stayed these proceedings against the Columbia Defendants.
IV	Delaventura v. Columbia Acorn Trust, et al., Superior Court,
Commonwealth of Mass., Case No. 05-1093 On March 21, 2005, a one-count
breach of contract class action complaint was filed against several of
the Columbia Registrants, including CAT, seeking to rescind the
Contingent Deferred Sales Charges assessed upon redemption of Class B
shares of Columbia mutual funds due to the alleged market timing
misconduct of defendants.  The Trustees are not named as defendants.
In addition to the rescission of sales charges, plaintiffs seek recovery
of actual damages, attorneys fees and costs.  On April 20, 2005, the
defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  CAT was voluntarily dismissed from
the complaint by plaintiffs.  As discussed in preceding sections, the
parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle all claims
against the Columbia defendants, including the Deleventue case,
subject to approval by the Court.  The terms and provisions of the
proposed agreement are confidential and the litigation has been stayed.


Exhibit 77O
Transactions Effected Pursuant to Rule 10f-3
On November 8, 2006, Columbia Acorn Fund (Fund) purchased 10,000 shares
of KBW, Inc. (Securities) for a total purchase price of $210,000 from
Banc of America Securities LLC pursuant to a public offering in which
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods acted as a participating underwriter.  Banc of
America Securities may be considered to be an affiliate of the Fund.
The following information was collected pursuant to Rule 10f-3
procedures adopted by the Funds Trustees:
 	The issuer of the Securities has been in continuous operation
for at least three years;

 	The Securities were to be purchased at not more than the
public offering price no later than the first day of the offering;

 	The Securities were offered pursuant to an underwriting
or similar agreement under which the underwriters were committed
to purchase all of the Securities being offered;

 	The Funds adviser, Columbia Wanger Asset Management, L.P.
believed that the gross underwriting spread or profit associated
with the purchase of the Securities was reasonable and fair compared
to the commissions, spreads and profits in connection with similar
underwritings of similar securities being sold during a comparable
period of time; and

 	The amount of Securities purchased did not exceed 25% of
the amount of the offering. Along with Banc of America Securities,
the following is a list of members of the underwriting syndicate for
the aforementioned Securities: Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Merrill Lynch
& Co., Fox-Pitt, Kelton, JMP Securities, Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,
BNY Capital Markets, Inc., FTN Midwest Securities Corp., and Morgan
Keegan & Company.


On January 25, 2007, Columbia Acorn Fund (Fund) purchased 625,000
shares of J Crew Group (Securities) for a total purchase price of
$23,631,250 from Banc of America Securities LLC pursuant to a public
offering in which Goldman Sachs & Co. acted as a participating
underwriter.  Banc of America Securities may be considered to be an
affiliate of the Fund.
The following information was collected pursuant to Rule 10f-3
procedures adopted by the Funds Trustees:
 	The issuer of the Securities has been in continuous
operation for at least three years;

 	The Securities were to be purchased at not more than
the public offering price no later than the first day of the
offering;

 	The Securities were offered pursuant to an underwriting
or similar agreement under which the underwriters were committed
to purchase all of the Securities being offered;

 	The Funds adviser, Columbia Wanger Asset Management,
L.P. believed that the gross underwriting spread or profit
associated with the purchase of the Securities was reasonable
and fair compared to the commissions, spreads and profits in
connection with similar underwritings of similar securities
being sold during a comparable period of time; and

 	The amount of Securities purchased did not exceed 25% of
the amount of the offering. Along with Banc of America Securities,
the following is a list of members of the underwriting syndicate for
the aforementioned Securities: Goldman, Sachs & Co., Bear, Stearns &
Co. Inc., Citigroup, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, and
Wachovia Securities.