<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77E LEGAL
<SEQUENCE>2
<FILENAME>ex77e.txt
<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 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.  The parties
conducted extensive discovery.  The Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment and various
related motions, and Class Plaintiffs
contemporaneously filed a motion for class
certification. The Court heard oral argument on these
motions on December 10-11, 2008.

On February 12, 2010, the parties agreed to a
stipulation and agreement of settlement, which is
subject to approval by the Court.  Plaintiffs filed
their motions for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the Court on April 21, 2010.  The
Court conducted a hearing on May 7, 2010 on
those motions and granted preliminary approval of the
settlements on May 19, 2010.  The Court
has set the hearing for final settlement approval for
October 21-22, 2010.

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 Plaintiffs in that action, holding that
Plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for rehearing in the Illinois Appellate
Court, which was denied on February 16, 2010.  The
Illinois Appellate Court issued its mandate
on March 30, 2010, and on April 5, 2010, the Circuit
Court dismissed the Putnam action with
prejudice.  On April 15, 2010, Defendants in the
Scudder action filed a supplemental
memorandum in support of their pending motion to
dismiss.  On April 15, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a
motion in the Putnam case to modify the order
dismissing that action and for leave to file an
amended complaint.  On April 20, 2010, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint in the Scudder action, which
Defendants have opposed.  The parties
appeared for a hearing before the Circuit Court on
April 23, 2010 and await the decision of that
court on the pending motions.

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.


DB1/64764105.1

5/26/10
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
