<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77E LEGAL
<SEQUENCE>4
<FILENAME>ex77e.txt
<DESCRIPTION>LEGAL
<TEXT>
Litigation Update

Federal Court Market Timing Litigation:
A number of private lawsuits have been filed
including purported class and derivative lawsuits,
making various allegations and naming as defendants
various persons, including certain Scudder and
Deutsche (now DWS) funds (singularly, a "Fund" and
collectively, the "Funds"), the Funds' investment
advisors and their affiliates, certain individuals
(including in some cases Fund Trustees/Directors,
officers), and other parties.  Each Fund's
investment advisor has agreed to indemnify the
applicable Funds in connection with these lawsuits,
or other lawsuits or regulatory actions that may be
filed making allegations similar to these lawsuits
regarding market timing, revenue sharing, fund
valuation or other subjects related to
investigations of the foregoing matters.  Based on
currently available information, the Funds'
investment advisors believe the likelihood that the
pending lawsuits will have a material adverse
financial impact on a Fund is remote and such
actions are not likely to materially affect their
ability to perform under their investment
management agreements with the Funds.

Fifteen (15) class and derivative actions
pertaining to market timing have been consolidated
and transferred to a Multidistrict Litigation Panel
in the District of Maryland ("MDL") (Multidistrict
Litigation 1586-In re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation).  The 11 Complaints originally filed in
the Southern District of New York that were
transferred to the MDL were virtually identical and
each asserted claims against Deutsche Bank AG,
Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
("DIMA") and Deutsche Asset Management, Inc. as
well as approximately 85 Funds in the Scudder and
Deutsche family of funds and John Doe defendants.
The three cases that were originally filed in the
Eastern District of New York and the one case
originally filed in the District of Delaware are
derivative actions brought by purported
shareholders in certain of the Funds.  These
actions are against Deutsche Investment Management
Americas Inc., Deutsche Asset Management, Inc., and
John Doe defendants.

On September 29, 2004, two consolidated amended
complaints, one a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint and the other a Consolidated Amended Fund
Derivative Complaint, were filed in the MDL.

On January 11, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in the
MDL.  The officer defendants have been voluntarily
dismissed from the class action pursuant to a
tolling agreement with Plaintiffs.  Deutsche Bank
AG has been dismissed from the derivative action.
On March 16, 2007, the Court issued an opinion in
the MDL granting in part and denying in part the
Deutsche Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint ("Third Amended Complaint") on
December 10, 2007 in the MDL.  In the Third Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs added the names of Funds
that they allegedly purchased or held during the
class period.  In addition, as contemplated in the
Court's scheduling order, the Third Amended
Complaint added a new Plaintiff in an attempt to
address standing challenges raised by the
Defendants.  On January 16, 2008, the Court granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss certain claims on standing grounds.
Extensive discovery has been undertaken.  The
Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment
and various related motions, and Class Plaintiffs
contemporaneously filed a motion for class
certification. Briefing on these motions is now
closed, and the Court heard oral argument on
December 10-11, 2008.

State Court Market Timing Litigation:
On September 16, 2003, an action was commenced in
the Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois,
entitled Potter v. Janus Investment Fund, et al.
Defendants include, among others, DIMA and the
Scudder International Fund. On October 23, 2003,
Defendants removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois. On February 9, 2004 the District Court
remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for
Madison County.  Defendants appealed this decision.
On April 5, 2005 the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's decision and
instructed the District Court to undo the remand
order and dismiss the complaint.  On May 27, 2005,
the District Court, in accord with the Seventh
Circuit's mandate, dismissed the action with
prejudice.  On September 29, 2005, Plaintiffs filed
a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme
Court of the United States.  On January 6, 2006,
the Supreme Court granted the petition to address
jurisdictional questions.  On June 15, 2006, the
Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Seventh
Circuit and held that the Court of Appeals did not
have jurisdiction to address the District Court's
remand order.  The case was remanded to and
reopened in the Circuit Court for Madison County.
On November 13, 2006, Defendants removed the case
to Federal District Court for a second time.  On
April 6, 2007, the District Court remanded the case
back to the Circuit Court for Madison County.
Defendants appealed this decision to the Seventh
Circuit, which dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction on July 13, 2007.  The case is now
back in the Circuit Court for Madison County.
Argument on Defendants' motion to dismiss occurred
in August 2007, and the parties are awaiting the
Circuit Court's decision.  The Circuit Court issued
an Order dated July 16, 2008 stating that the
issues raised by the motion to dismiss are nearly
identical to those in a pending appeal in an action
involving the Putnam funds, and that the Court
would therefore wait for the decision of the
Illinois Appellate Court in that case before ruling
on the motion to dismiss.  On January 6, 2010, the
Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of the
Putnam fund defendants and against the plaintiffs
in that action, holding that the plaintiffs' claims
are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act.  The plaintiffs may file a motion
for rehearing in the Illinois Appellate Court or
may petition the Illinois Supreme Court for leave
to appeal the decision of the Illinois Appellate
Court.

Federal Court Revenue Sharing Litigation:
The following purported class actions pertaining to
revenue sharing were filed in the Southern District
of New York: Walker v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al.,
Mazza v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al. and Icardo v.
Deutsche Bank AG, et al.  These three class actions
were consolidated. The consolidated Complaint filed
on December 19, 2005 named as defendants Deutsche
Bank AG, certain affiliated adviser entities, and
Scudder Distributors Inc.  On August 15, 2007, the
Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
with prejudice and denied Plaintiffs' request for
leave to amend the complaint.  The Plaintiffs did
not appeal, and the deadline for appealing this
decision has now passed.

1-25-10


DB1/62431656.1
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
