Litigation Update

Federal Court Market Timing Litigation:
A number of private lawsuits have been filed
including purported class and derivative
lawsuits, making various allegations and
naming as defendants various persons,
including certain Scudder and Deutsche
(now DWS) funds (singularly, a "Fund"
and collectively, the "Funds"), the Funds'
investment advisors and their affiliates,
certain individuals (including in some
cases Fund Trustees/Directors, officers),
and other parties.  Each Fund's investment
advisor has agreed to indemnify the
applicable 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 related to investigations of
the foregoing matters.  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 Fund is remote and
such actions are not likely to materially
affect their ability to perform under their
investment management agreements with the Funds.

Fifteen (15) class and derivative actions
pertaining to market timing have been
consolidated and transferred to a Multidistrict
Litigation Panel 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.
("DIMA") and Deutsche Asset Management, Inc.
as well as approximately 85 Funds in the
Scudder and Deutsche 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
certain of the Funds.  These actions are against
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
in the MDL.

On January 11, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in
the MDL.  The officer defendants have been
voluntarily dismissed from the class action
pursuant to a tolling agreement with Plaintiffs.
Deutsche Bank AG has been dismissed from the
derivative action.  On March 16, 2007, the Court
issued an opinion in the MDL 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 MDL.  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.  Extensive discovery has been
undertaken.  The Defendants have filed a motion
for summary judgment and various related motions,
and Class Plaintiffs contemporaneously filed a
motion for class certification. Briefing on these
motions is now closed.  The Court has scheduled a
hearing for these motions on December 10-11, 2008.

State Court Market Timing Litigation:
On September 16, 2003, an action was commenced in
the Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois,
entitled Potter v. Janus Investment Fund, et al.
Defendants include, among others, DIMA and the
Scudder International Fund. On October 23, 2003,
Defendants removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
On February 9, 2004 the District Court remanded the
case back to the Circuit Court for Madison County.
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 Seventh Circuit's mandate,
dismissed the action 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 the District Court's
remand order.  The case was remanded to and reopened
in the Circuit Court for Madison County.  On
November 13, 2006, Defendants removed the case to
Federal District Court for a second time.  On
April 6, 2007, the District Court remanded the
case back to the Circuit Court for Madison County.
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 the Circuit Court for Madison County.  We argued
Defendants' motion to dismiss in August 2007 and are
awaiting the Circuit Court's decision.  On
July 23, 2008, we received an Order from the Circuit
Court dated July 16, 2008 in which the Court stated
that the issues raised by the motion to dismiss are
nearly identical to those in a pending appeal in
another action, and that the Court would therefore
wait for the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court
before ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Federal Court Revenue Sharing Litigation:
The following purported class actions pertaining
to revenue sharing were filed in the Southern
District of New York: Walker v. Deutsche Bank AG,
et al., Mazza v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al. and
Icardo v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al.  These three
class actions were consolidated. The consolidated
Complaint filed on December 19, 2005 named as
defendants Deutsche Bank AG, certain affiliated a
dviser entities, and Scudder Distributors Inc.
On August 15, 2007, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied
Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the complaint.
The Plaintiffs did not appeal, and the deadline for
appealing this decision has now passed.


DB1/62009303.1

Updated 11/26/08