<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77Q1 OTHR EXHB
<SEQUENCE>4
<FILENAME>h79981ex77e.txt
<DESCRIPTION>EXHIBIT
<TEXT>
                                                                   Sub-Item 77E

                                LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

                     INVESCO VAN KAMPEN HIGH INCOME TRUST II

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, 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

<PAGE>

                                                                    Sub-Item 77E

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

          The MDL Court formally approved the settlements and dismissed with
prejudice all claims against the Invesco-related parties on October 25, 2010.
There was a brief period to appeal the MDL Court's approval; however, no appeal
was filed. This matter is concluded.

Other Actions Invesco Van Kampen High Income Trust

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
HIGHINCOME 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
(collectively, the Trusts) against Van Kampen Asset Management, Morgan Stanley
and certain current and former trustees and executive officers of the Trusts
(collectively, the Defendants), alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties to common shareholders by causing the Trusts to redeem Auction Rate
Preferred Securities (ARPS) at their liquidation value when

<PAGE>

                                                                    Sub-Item 77E

the secondary market valued the ARPS at a significant discount from their
liquidation values. The Complaint also alleges that the redemption of the ARPS
occurred at the expense of the Trusts and their common shareholders. This
Complaint consolidates two separate actions 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. Plaintiffs seek
judgment that: 1) orders Defendants to refrain from redeeming any ARPS at their
liquidation value using Trusts 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 the parties to the litigation have agreed to a temporary stay
of the litigation pending completion of the investigation.

          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, may be found in the Fund's Statement of
Additional Information, if applicable.
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
