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.  The court also
has scheduled
briefing 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
Northern 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.


G:\mfld\market timers\Disclosure -
Litigation\77e disclosure _ 1-21-05.doc
August 2007 Update