<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77E LEGAL
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>h81580ex77e.txt
<DESCRIPTION>EXHIBIT
<TEXT>
                                                                   SUB-ITEM 77E

             INVESCO VAN KAMPEN ADVANTAGE MUNICIPAL INCOME TRUST II

                                LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

SETTLED REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO MARKET
TIMING

     On October 8, 2004, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (Invesco), successor by merger
to Invesco Aim Advisors, Inc. and INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. (IFG), both former
investment advisers, along with Invesco Aim Distributors, n/k/a Invesco
Distributors, Inc. (Invesco Distributors) reached final settlements with certain
regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the New York
Attorney General and the Colorado Attorney General, to resolve civil enforcement
actions and/or investigations related to market timing and related activity in
the AIM Funds (n/k/a the Invesco Funds), including those formerly advised by
IFG. As part of the settlements, a $325 million fair fund ($110 million of which
is civil penalties) was created to compensate shareholders harmed by market
timing and related activity in funds formerly advised by IFG. Additionally,
Invesco and Invesco Distributors created a $50 million fair fund ($30 million of
which is civil penalties) to compensate shareholders harmed by market timing and
related activity in funds advised by Invesco, which was done pursuant to the
terms of the settlement. The methodology of the fair funds distributions was
determined by Invesco's independent distribution consultant (IDC Plan), in
consultation with Invesco and the independent trustees of the Invesco Funds, and
approved by the SEC on May 23, 2008.

     The IDC Plan provides for distribution to all eligible investors for the
periods spanning January 1, 2000 through July 31, 2003 (for the IFG Fair Fund)
and January 1, 2001 through September 30, 2003 (for the AIM Fair Fund), their
proportionate share of the applicable Fair Fund to compensate such investors for
injury they may have suffered as a result of market timing in the affected
funds. The IDC Plan includes a provision for any residual amounts in the Fair
Funds to be distributed in the future to the affected funds. Further details
regarding the IDC Plan and distributions thereunder are available on Invesco's
Web site, available at http://www.invesco.com/us.

PENDING REGULATORY ACTION ALLEGING MARKET TIMING

     On August 30, 2005, the West Virginia Office of the State Auditor -
Securities Commission (WVASC) issued a Summary Order to Cease and Desist and
Notice of Right to Hearing to Invesco and Invesco Distributors (Order No.
05-1318). The WVASC makes findings of fact that Invesco and Invesco Distributors
entered into certain arrangements permitting market timing of the Invesco Funds
and failed to disclose these arrangements in the prospectuses for such Funds,
and conclusions of law to the effect that Invesco and Invesco Distributors
violated the West Virginia securities laws. The WVASC orders Invesco and Invesco
Distributors to cease any further violations and seeks to impose monetary
sanctions, including restitution to affected investors, disgorgement of fees,
reimbursement of investigatory, administrative and legal costs and an
"administrative assessment," to be determined by the Commissioner. Initial
research indicates that these damages could be limited or capped by statute. By
agreement with the Commissioner of Securities, Invesco's time to respond to that
Order has been indefinitely suspended.

PRIVATE CIVIL ACTIONS ALLEGING MARKET TIMING

     Multiple civil lawsuits, including purported class action and shareholder
derivative suits, were filed against various parties (including, depending on
the lawsuit, certain Invesco Funds, IFG, Invesco, Invesco Aim Management Group,
Inc., n/k/a Invesco Management Group, Inc. and certain related entities, certain
of their current and former officers and/or certain unrelated third parties)
based on allegations of improper market timing and related activity in the
Invesco Funds. The lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland (the MDL Court) for consolidated or coordinated
pre-trial proceedings.

                                       1

<PAGE>

                                                                    SUB-ITEM 77E

     Pursuant to an Order of the MDL Court, plaintiffs in these lawsuits
consolidated their claims for pre-trial purposes into three amended complaints
against various Invesco - and IFG-related parties, as described below.

   -  RICHARD LEPERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
      SITUATED (LEAD PLAINTIFF: CITY OF CHICAGO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN), V.
      INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL, in the MDL Court (Case No. 04-MD-15864;
      No. 04-CV-00814-JFM) (originally in the United States District Court for
      the District of Colorado), filed on September 29, 2004.

   -  CYNTHIA ESSENMACHER, ET AL., Derivatively on Behalf of the Mutual Funds,
      Trusts and Corporations Comprising the Invesco and AIM Family of Mutual
      Funds v. AMVESCAP, PLC, ET AL., in the MDL Court (Case No.
      04-MD-15864-FPS; No. 04-819), filed on September 29, 2004.

   -  MIRIAM CALDERON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
      SITUATED, V. AVZ, INC., ET AL., in the MDL Court (Case No.
      1:04-MD-15864-FPS), filed on September 29, 2004.

      On January 5, 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle both the Lepera and the Essenmacher lawsuits, subject to the MDL Court
approval.

      On December 15, 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the Calderon lawsuit, subject to the MDL Court approval. No payments were
required under the settlement; however, the parties agreed that certain limited
changes to benefit plans and participants' accounts would be made.

      The Court approved the settlements on October 21, 2010. There was a brief
period to appeal the Court's approval; however, no appeal was filed. The
payments to affected shareholders were made in January 2011. This concludes
these matters.

OTHER ACTIONS INVOLVING INVESCO VAN KAMPEN ADVANTAGE MUNICIPAL INCOME TRUST II

CLIFFORD T. ROTZ, JR., DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT INVESCO VAN
KAMPEN ADVANTAGE MUNICIPAL INCOME TRUST II, ROBERT FAST, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF
OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT INVESCO VAN KAMPEN MUNICIPAL OPPORTUNITY TRUST, GENE
TURBAN, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT INVESCO VAN KAMPEN MUNICIPAL
TRUST, LEON MCDERMOTT, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT INVESCO VAN
KAMPEN HIGH INCOME TRUST II AND MARILYN MORRISON, HARRY SULESKI AND JOHN
JOHNSON, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT INVESCO VAN KAMPEN SENIOR
INCOME TRUST, PLAINTIFF, V. VAN KAMPEN ASSET MANAGEMENT, EDWARD C. WOOD, III,
STUART N. SCHULDT, JOHN L. SULLIVAN, STEFANI V. CHANG YU, KEVIN KLINGERT, JERRY
W. MILLER, RONALD E. ROBISON, AMY R. DOBERMAN, DENNIS SHEA, THOMAS BYRON, ROBERT
J. STRYKER, ROBERT W. WIMMEL, WILLIAM BLACK, MARK PARIS, WAYNE D. GODLIN,
CHRISTINA JAMIESON, ANDREW FINDLING, DENNIS M. SCANEY, GERALD FOGARTY, JEFFREY
SCOTT, PHILIP YARROW, STEVEN K. KREIDER, HOWARD TIFFEN AND MORGAN STANLEY,
DEFENDANTS, AND INVESCO VAN KAMPEN ADVTANTAGE MUNICIPAL INCOME TRUST II, INVESCO
VAN KAMPEN MUNICIPAL OPPORTUNITY TRUST, INVESCO VAN KAMPEN MUNICIPAL TRUST,
INVESCO VAN KAMPEN HIGH INCOME TRUST II AND INVESCO VAN KAMPEN SENIOR INCOME
TRUST, NOMINAL DEFENDANTS. On January 17, 2011, a Consolidated Amended
Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New
York County, on behalf of Invesco Van Kampen High Income Trust II, Invesco Van
Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust II, Invesco Van Kampen Municipal
Opportunity Trust, Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Trust and Invesco Van Kampen
Senior Income Trust (the Trusts) against Van Kampen Asset Management, Morgan
Stanley and certain current and former executive officers of the Trusts
(collectively, the Defendants) alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties to common shareholders by causing the Trusts to

                                       2

<PAGE>

                                                                    SUB-ITEM 77E

redeem Auction Rate Preferred Securities (ARPS) at their liquidation value.
Specifically, the shareholders claim that the Board and officers had no
obligation to provide liquidity to the ARPS shareholders, the redemptions were
improperly motivated to benefit the prior adviser by preserving business
relationships with the ARPS holders, i.e., institutional investors, and the
market value and fair value of the ARPS were less than par at the time they were
redeemed. The Complaint alleges that the redemption of the ARPS occurred at the
expense of the Trusts and their common shareholders. This Complaint amends and
consolidates two separate complaints that were filed by Clifford T. Rotz, Jr.,
Robert Fast and Gene Turban on July 22, 2010, and by Harry Suleski, Leon
McDermott, Marilyn Morrison and John Johnson on August 3, 2010. Each of the
Trusts initially received a demand letter from the plaintiffs on April 8, 2010.
Plaintiffs seek judgment that: 1) orders Defendants to refrain from redeeming
any ARPS at their liquidation value using Trust assets; 2) awards monetary
damages against all Defendants, individually, jointly or severally, in favor of
the Trusts, for all losses and damages allegedly suffered as a result of the
redemptions of ARPS at their liquidation value; 3) grants appropriate equitable
relief to remedy the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties; and 4) awards to
Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the action. The Board has formed a
committee to investigate these claims and make a recommendation to the Board
regarding whether maintenance of these claims is in the best interests of the
Trusts. A Stipulation and Proposed Order for Stay of Litigation was filed on
March 9, 2011, and subsequently approved by the Court, moving the due date for
responses to the Complaint to June 16, 2011. Plaintiffs also filed a letter with
the Court requesting postponement of a status hearing to June 27, 2011.

At the present time, management of Invesco and the Invesco Funds are unable to
estimate the impact, if any, that the outcome of the Pending Litigation and
Regulatory Inquiries described herein may have on Invesco, Invesco Distributors
or the Invesco Funds.

                                       3
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
