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