Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Representing Shareholders Of Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Announces A November 1, 2010, Deadline To Move For Appointment As Lead Plaintiff In The Shareholder Lawsuit

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (“Corinthian Colleges” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: COCO) between October 30, 2007 and August 19, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), have five days until the November 1, 2010, deadline to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at [phone] or Toll Free at [phone], by email to [e-mail], or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.

The Complaint charges Corinthian Colleges and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Corinthian Colleges is a post-secondary education company that offers various diploma programs, as well as undergraduate and graduate-level degrees in the United States and Canada. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Corinthian Colleges’ financial performance and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated its growth prospects by engaging in illicit and improper recruiting activities, which also had the effect of artificially inflating the Company’s reported results and future growth prospects; (2) the Company's financial results were overstated in that the Company’s colleges inflated tuition costs and its student loan repayment rates were well below levels required for participation in federal loan programs; (3) the Company failed to maintain adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls; and (4) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a basis for their positive statements about the Company, its prospects and growth.

1 2 Next › Last »