EX-99.77E LEGAL

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 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.  The parties conducted extensive discovery.  The
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and various
related motions, and Class Plaintiffs contemporaneously filed a
motion for class certification. The Court heard oral argument on
these motions on December 10-11, 2008.

On February 12, 2010, the parties agreed to a stipulation and
agreement of settlement.  Plaintiffs filed their motions for
preliminary approval of the settlement with the Court on April 21,
2010.  The Court conducted a hearing on May 7, 2010 on those
motions and granted preliminary approval of the settlements on
May 19, 2010.  Afterward, class notices were distributed to
shareholders, and on September 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed their
motion for final approval of the settlement, which was
supplemented by a reply brief filed on October 6, 2010.  On
October 21-22, 2010, the Court conducted a hearing on the motion
for final approval of the settlement.  The Court granted the motion
on October 25, 2010 and entered a judgment approving a
settlement class, approving the settlements, dismissing the claims
against the Defendants in the MDL, and enjoining Plaintiffs and
class members from instituting, commencing or prosecuting any
claims subject to the settlement against the Defendants.

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.  Argument on Defendants' motion to dismiss
occurred in August 2007, and the parties are awaiting the Circuit
Court's decision.  The Circuit Court issued an Order dated July 16,
2008 stating that the issues raised by the motion to dismiss are
nearly identical to those in a pending appeal in an action involving
the Putnam funds, and that the Court would therefore wait for the
decision of the Illinois Appellate Court in that case before ruling
on the motion to dismiss.

On January 6, 2010, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of
the Putnam fund defendants and against Plaintiffs in that action,
holding that Plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the federal
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for rehearing in the Illinois Appellate Court, which was
denied on February 16, 2010.  The Illinois Appellate Court issued
its mandate on March 30, 2010, and on April 5, 2010, the Circuit
Court dismissed the Putnam action with prejudice.  On April 15,
2010, Defendants in the Scudder action filed a supplemental
memorandum in support of their pending motion to dismiss.  On
April 15, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion in the Putnam case to
modify the order dismissing that action and for leave to file an
amended complaint.  On April 20, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in the Scudder
action, which Defendants opposed.  On July 22, 2010, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint but granted leave for Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint within twenty-one days that does not include any class-
action-based allegations or prayers for relief.  Subsequently,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 22,
2010 Order or, in the alternative, for certification of an
interlocutory appeal.  Defendants filed their opposition to that
motion on August 25, 2010.  On November 5, 2010, Defendants
filed their Notice of Federal Injunction. At a hearing on November
16, 2010, the Court entered an Order terminating the case and
instructing the court clerk to close the case file.

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
adviser 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.


updated 11/24/10

DB1/66090805.1

EX-99.77B ACCT LTTR

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm

To the Shareholders and
Board of Trustees of DWS Blue Chip Fund
In planning and performing our audit of the financial
statements of DWS Blue Chip Fund  (the Company) as of and
for the year ended October 31, 2010, in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), we considered the Company's internal
control over financial reporting, including controls over
safeguarding securities, as a basis for designing our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control
over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such
opinion.
The management of the Company is responsible for
establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates
and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls. A company's
internal control over financial reporting is a process designed
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. A company's internal control over
financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that
(1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable
detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and
dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as
necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,
and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being
made only in accordance with authorizations of management
and trustees of the company; and (3) provide reasonable
assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of a company's
assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.
A deficiency in internal control over financial reporting exists
when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect
misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control
over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable
possibility that a material misstatement of the company's
annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or
detected on a timely basis.
Our consideration of the Company's internal control over
financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in
the first paragraph and would not necessarily disclose all
deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).
However, we noted no deficiencies in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting and its operation, including
controls over safeguarding securities, that we consider to be
a material weakness as defined above as of October 31,
2010.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Trustees of DWS Blue Chip
Fund and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other
than these specified parties.



Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
December 21, 2010