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, and the Court heard oral argument 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 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.


DB1/62431656.1

12/24/08