Litigation Update

Federal Case:
As previously reported in the press, a
number of private lawsuits have been filed
including purported class action and
derivative lawsuits, making various
allegations and naming as defendants various
persons, including certain Scudder (now DWS)
funds, the funds' investment advisors and
their affiliates, certain individuals,
including in some cases fund
Trustees/Directors, officers, and other
parties.  Each Scudder fund's investment
advisor has agreed to indemnify the
applicable Scudder 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 arising
from or related to the pending inquiries.
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 Scudder fund is remote and such actions
are not likely to materially affect their
ability to perform under their investment
management agreements with the Scudder
funds.

The following purported class action and
derivative lawsuits pertaining to market
timing have been filed:

There are 15 class and derivative actions
that have been consolidated and transferred
to a Multidistrict Litigation 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. and
Deutsche Asset Management, Inc. as well as
approximately 85 Funds in the Scudder 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 many of the
Scudder Funds.  These actions named 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.

On January 11, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint. The officer defendants have been
voluntarily dismissed from the class action
pursuant to a tolling agreement entered into
with Plaintiffs.  Deutsche Bank AG has been
dismissed from the derivative action.  On
March 16, 2007, the court issued an opinion
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 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
case is currently in the discovery phase.

State Case:
On September 16, 2003, a case was commenced
in the Circuit Court for Madison County,
Illinois entitled Potter v. Janus Investment
Fund, et al.  Defendants include, among
others, Deutsche Investment Management
Americas, Inc. ("DIMA"), and Scudder
International Fund.
On October 23, 2003, Defendants removed the
case to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois. On
February 9, 2004 the District Court remanded
the case back to state court.  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 Appellate Court's mandate,
dismissed the state law claims 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 District Court's
remand order.  The case was remanded to and
reopened in state court.  On November 13,
2006, Defendants removed the case to federal
court for a second time.  On April 6, 2007,
the district court remanded the case back to
state court.  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 state court, and a number of
motions are pending.

The following purported class action
lawsuits pertaining to revenue sharing have
been filed:

There are 3 class actions that have been
consolidated in the Southern District of New
York.  On September 6, 2005, Walker v.
Deutsche Bank AG, et al., Mazza v. Deutsche
Bank AG, et al and Icardo v. Deutsche Bank
AG, et al, were consolidated.  The
consolidated Complaint filed on December 19,
2005 names Deutsche Bank AG, certain
affiliated adviser entities, and Scudder
Distributors Inc.

On August 15, 2007, the court granted the
Deutsche Defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied Plaintiffs' request for
leave to amend the complaint.  The
plaintiffs have not filed an appeal, and the
deadline for appealing this decision has now
passed.

Updated April 24, 2008