<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77E LEGAL
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>r77e.txt
<DESCRIPTION>LEGAL
<TEXT>
Since February 2004, PIMCO, Allianz Global Investors of America L.P. ("AGI")
(formerly known as Allianz Dresdner Asset Management of America L.P.)
(PIMCO's parent company), and certain of their affiliates, including PIMCO
Funds (a complex of mutual funds managed by PIMCO) and Allianz Funds (formerly
known as PIMCO Funds: Multi-Manager Series) (a complex of mutual funds
managed by affiliates of PIMCO), certain PIMCO Funds trustees, and certain
employees of PIMCO have been named as defendants in fifteen lawsuits filed in
various jurisdictions. Eleven of those lawsuits concern "market timing", and
they have been transferred to and consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a
multi district litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland; the other four lawsuits concern "revenue sharing" and
have been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut. The lawsuits have been commenced as putative
class actions on behalf of investors who purchased, held or redeemed shares
of the various series of PIMCO Funds and Allianz Funds during specified
periods, or as derivative actions on behalf of the PIMCO Funds and Allianz
Funds. The market timing and revenue sharing lawsuits seek, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and, in some cases,
punitive damages, the rescission of investment advisory contracts, the return
of fees paid under those contracts and restitution.

The market timing actions in the District of Maryland generally allege that
certain hedge funds were allowed to engage in "market timing" in certain funds
of PIMCO Funds and Allianz Funds and this alleged activity was not disclosed.
Pursuant to tolling agreements entered into with the derivative and class
action plaintiffs, PIMCO, certain PIMCO Funds trustees, and certain employees
of PIMCO who were previously named as defendants have all been dropped as
defendants in the market timing actions; however, the plaintiffs continue to
assert claims on behalf of the shareholders of PIMCO Funds or on behalf of
PIMCO Funds itself against other defendants. By order dated November 3, 2005,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted PIMCO Funds'
motion to dismiss claims asserted against it in a consolidated amended
complaint where PIMCO Funds was named, in the complaint, as a nominal
defendant. Thus, at present PIMCO Funds is not a party to any "market timing"
lawsuit. The revenue sharing action in the District of Connecticut generally
alleges that fund assets were inappropriately used to pay brokers to promote
funds of the Allianz Funds and of the PIMCO Funds, including directing fund
brokerage transactions to such brokers, and that such alleged arrangements
were not fully disclosed to shareholders. On September 19, 2007, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the revenue sharing action.
Thus, at present PIMCO Funds is not a party to any revenue sharing lawsuit.

Two nearly identical class action civil complaints have been filed in August
2005, in the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, alleging that
the plaintiffs each purchased and sold a 10-year Treasury note futures
contract and suffered damages from an alleged shortage when PIMCO held both
physical and futures positions in 10-year Treasury notes for its client
accounts. The two actions have been consolidated into one action, and the two
separate complaints have been replaced by a consolidated complaint. PIMCO is
a named defendant, and PIMCO Funds has been added as a defendant, to the
consolidated action. PIMCO and PIMCO Funds strongly believe the complaint is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves.

In April 2006, certain registered investment companies and other funds managed
by PIMCO were served in an adversary proceeding brought by the Official
Committee of Asbestos Claimants of G-I Holdings, Inc. in G-I Holdings, Inc.'s
bankruptcy in the District of New Jersey. In July 2004, PIMCO was named in this
lawsuit and remains a defendant. The plaintiff seeks to recover for the
bankruptcy estate assets that were transferred by the predecessor entity of G-I
Holdings, Inc. to a wholly-owned subsidiary in 1994. The subsidiary has since
issued notes, of which certain registered investment companies and other funds
managed by PIMCO are alleged to be holders. The complaint alleges that in 2000,
more than two hundred noteholders - including certain registered investment
companies and other funds managed by PIMCO - were granted a second priority lien
on the assets of the subsidiary in exchange for their consent to a refinancing
transaction and the granting of a first priority lien to the lending banks. The
plaintiff is seeking invalidation of the lien in favor of the noteholders
and or the value of the lien. On June 21, 2006, the District of New Jersey
overturned the Bankruptcy Court's decision granting permission to file the
adversary proceeding and remanded the matter to the Bankruptcy Court for
further proceedings. Following a motion to reconsider, the District Court
upheld its remand on August 7, 2006, and instructed the Bankruptcy Court
to conduct a "cost-benefit" analysis of the Committee's claims, including the
claims against the noteholders. The Bankruptcy Court held a status conference
on October 25, 2006 and set a briefing schedule relating to this cost benefit
analysis. To date, no briefs have been filed. This matter is not expected
to have a material adverse effect.
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
