<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77E LEGAL
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>ex77e.txt
<DESCRIPTION>EXHIBIT
<TEXT>
                                                                    SUB-ITEM 77E

                     INVESCO VAN KAMPEN HIGH INCOME TRUST II

                                LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

SETTLED 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.

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.

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, have been 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


                                       1

<PAGE>

allegations of improper market timing and related activity in the Invesco Funds.
These lawsuits allege a variety of theories of recovery, including but not
limited to: (i) violation of various provisions of the Federal and state
securities laws; (ii) violation of various provisions of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA); (iii) breach of fiduciary duty;
and/or (iv) breach of contract. These lawsuits were initiated in both Federal
and state courts and seek such remedies as compensatory damages; restitution;
injunctive relief; disgorgement of management fees; imposition of a constructive
trust; removal of certain directors and/or employees; various corrective
measures under ERISA; rescission of certain Funds' advisory agreements;
interest; and attorneys' and experts' fees. All lawsuits based on allegations of
market timing, late trading, and related issues have been transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the MDL Court) for
consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

          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. The parties in the amended
complaints have agreed in principle to settle the actions. A list identifying
the amended complaints in the MDL Court and details of the settlements are
discussed 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 March 1, 2006, the MDL Court dismissed all derivative causes of
action in the Essenmacher lawsuit but two: (i) the excessive fee claim under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act); and (ii) the
"control person liability" claim under Section 48 of the 1940 Act, and all
claims asserted in the Lepera class action lawsuit but three: (i) the securities
fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (ii)
the excessive fee claim under Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act (which survived only
insofar as plaintiffs seek recovery of fees associated with the assets involved
in market timing); and (iii) the "control person liability" claim under Section
48 of the 1940 Act. On June 14, 2006, the MDL Court entered an order dismissing
the Section 48 claim in the derivative (Essenmacher) lawsuit. Based on the MDL
Court's March 1, 2006 and June 14, 2006 orders, all claims asserted against the
Funds that were transferred to the MDL Court were dismissed, although certain
Funds remain nominal defendants in the derivative (Essenmacher) lawsuit. On
January 5, 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle both
the class action (Lepera) and the derivative (Essenmacher) lawsuits, subject to
the MDL Court approval. Individual class members have the right to object.

          On September 15, 2006, Judge Motz for the MDL Court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the ERISA (Calderon) lawsuit and dismissed such
lawsuit. The Plaintiff appealed this decision. On June 16, 2008, the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded this lawsuit back
to the MDL Court for further proceedings. On December 15, 2008, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle this lawsuit, subject to the MDL
Court approval. Individual class members have the right to object. No payments
are required under the settlement; however, the parties agreed that certain
limited changes to benefit plans and participants' accounts would be made.


                                       2

<PAGE>

          More detailed information regarding each of the civil lawsuits
identified above, including the parties to the lawsuits and summaries of the
various allegations and remedies sought, can be found in the Fund's Statement of
Additional Information.


                                       3
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
