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.  The case is currently in
the discovery phase.  Briefing and oral
argument also has taken place on certain
issues related to the Plaintiffs' standing
to bring claims on behalf of shareholders
in funds in which the named Plaintiffs
never owned shares.

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 llinois. 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 November 14, 2007