Columbia Acorn Trust - 6/30-09 N-SAR

Item 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 International's portfolio securities had occurred after foreign
markets had closed but before the calculation of Acorn International's
net asset value ("NAV"); (b) failing to implement Acorn International's
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 Circuit's 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 Circuit's decision. The writ
challenged whether the district court's 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 Circuit's
decision of SLUSA preclusion created a conflict with the Second Circuit's
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 SLUSA preclusion issue. On June 15,
2006, the Supreme Court held that the Seventh Circuit did not have
appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's 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 CWAM's 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 against all parties. Plaintiffs timely
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit on December 29, 2005.  A stipulation and settlement agreement dated
January 19, 2007 was filed in the First Circuit on February 14, 2007, with a
joint stipulation of dismissal and motion for remand to obtain district court
approval of the settlement.  That joint motion was granted and the appeal was
dismissed.  On March 6, 2007, the case was remanded to the federal district
court.  The settlement, approved by the federal district court on
September 18, 2007, became effective October 19, 2007.  Pursuant to the
settlement, CWAM and/or its affiliates made certain payments, including
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs of notice to class members.

	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 reached an agreement
in principle to settle all claims against the Columbia Defendants, including
the Funds and the CAT Trustees, which was memorialized in a term sheet.
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.

	On September 14, 2007, the plaintiffs and the defendants named in
these proceedings entered into a formal stipulation of settlement with
respect to all claims against the Columbia Defendants.  The settlement is
subject to approval by the Court.

	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 May 20, 2009, Columbia Acorn Fund purchased 2,922,400 shares
of Hertz Global Holdings Inc. ("Securities") for a total purchase price
of $18,995,600 from J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. ("J.P. Morgan") pursuant
to a secondary offering in which Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch") acted as a participating underwriter.
Also on May 20, 2009, pursuant to a secondary offering in which Merrill
Lynch acted as a participating underwriter, Columbia Acorn USA purchased
from J.P. Morgan 109,600 shares of Securities for a total purchase price
of $712,400 and Columbia Acorn Select purchased from J.P. Morgan 730,600
shares of Securities for a total purchase price of $4,748,900.  Merrill
Lynch may be considered to be an affiliate of the Funds.

	The following information was collected pursuant to Rule 10f-3
procedures adopted by the Funds' board of 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' advisor, 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 Merrill Lynch, the following is a list
of members of the underwriting syndicate for the aforementioned Securities:
J.P. Morgan, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., ABN AMRO Incorporated, BNP Paribas Securities Corp.,
Calyon Securities (USA Inc.).