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, 2007, 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 January 22, 2008