EX-99.77E LEGAL 4 ex77e.txt SUB-ITEM 77E LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AIM INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL FUNDS Your Fund's investment advisor, A I M Advisors, Inc. ("AIM"), is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of AMVESCAP PLC ("AMVESCAP"). Another indirect wholly owned subsidiary of AMVESCAP, INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. ("IFG"), was formerly the investment advisor to the INVESCO Funds. AIM succeeded IFG as the investment advisor to the INVESCO Funds other than INVESCO Variable Investment Funds, Inc. ("IVIF") on November 25, 2003, and succeeded IFG as the investment advisor to IVIF on April 30, 2004. The mutual fund industry as a whole is currently subject to a wide range of inquiries and litigation related to a wide range of issues, including issues of "market timing" and "late trading." Both AIM and IFG are the subject of a number of such inquiries, as described below. Regulatory Actions and Inquiries Concerning IFG ----------------------------------------------- On December 2, 2003 each of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York ("NYAG") filed civil proceedings against IFG and Raymond R. Cunningham, in his capacity as the chief executive officer of IFG. Mr. Cunningham also currently holds the positions of Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of A I M Management Group Inc. ("AIM Management"), the parent of AIM, and the position of Senior Vice President of AIM. As of April 23, 2004, Mr. Cunningham was granted a voluntary administrative leave of absence with pay. In addition, on December 2, 2003, the State of Colorado filed civil proceedings against IFG. Neither the Fund nor any of the other AIM or INVESCO Funds has been named as a defendant in any of these proceedings. The SEC complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado [Civil Action No. 03-N-2421 (PAC)], alleges that IFG failed to disclose in the INVESCO Funds' prospectuses and to the INVESCO Funds' independent directors that IFG had entered into certain arrangements permitting market timing of the INVESCO Funds. The SEC alleges violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that Act, Section 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The SEC is seeking injunctions, including permanent injunctions from serving as an investment advisor, officer or director of an investment company; an accounting of all market timing as well as certain fees and compensation received; disgorgement; civil monetary penalties; and other relief. The NYAG complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County), is also based on the circumstances described above. The NYAG complaint alleges violation of Article 23-A (the Martin Act) and Section 349 of the General Business Law of the State of New York and Section 63(12) of the State of New York's Executive Law. The NYAG is seeking injunctions, including permanent injunctions from directly or indirectly selling or distributing shares of mutual funds; disgorgement of all profits obtained, including fees collected, and payment of all restitution and damages caused, directly or indirectly from the alleged illegal activities; civil monetary penalties; and other relief. The Colorado complaint, filed in the Colorado District Court, in the City and County of Denver, Colorado, is also based on the circumstances described above. The Colorado complaint alleges violations of Section 6-1-105(1) of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The State of Colorado is seeking injunctions; restitution, disgorgement and other equitable relief; civil monetary penalties; and other relief. No relief is being sought against the Fund or any of the other AIM or INVESCO Funds in any of these complaints. In addition, IFG has received inquiries in the form of subpoenas or other oral or written requests for information from various regulators concerning market timing activity, late trading, fair value pricing and other related issues concerning the INVESCO Funds. These regulators include the Florida Department of Financial Services, the Commissioner of Securities for the State of Georgia, the Office of the State Auditor for the State of West Virginia, the Office of the Secretary of State for West Virginia, the Colorado Securities Division and the Bureau of Securities of the State of New Jersey. IFG has also received more limited inquiries from the United States Department of Labor ("DOL"), the NASD, Inc. ("NASD"), the SEC and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York concerning certain specific INVESCO Funds, entities and/or individuals. Regulatory Inquiries Concerning AIM ----------------------------------- AIM has also received inquiries in the form of subpoenas or other oral or written requests for information from various regulators concerning market timing activity, late trading, fair value pricing, and other related issues concerning the AIM Funds. AIM has received requests for information and documents concerning these and related matters from the SEC, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Office of the State Auditor for the State of West Virginia and the Department of Banking for the State of Connecticut. In addition, AIM has received subpoenas concerning these and related matters from the NYAG, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, the Commissioner of Securities for the State of Georgia, the Office of the Secretary of State for West Virginia and the Bureau of Securities of the State of New Jersey. AIM has also received more limited inquiries from the DOL, the NASD, the SEC and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York concerning certain specific AIM Funds, entities and/or individuals. Response of the Independent Trustees ------------------------------------ The independent trustees of the AIM and INVESCO Funds have retained their own independent counsel to conduct an investigation on behalf of the independent trustees into the frequent trading arrangements and related issues raised by the regulators. The independent trustees have also retained their own financial expert in this regard. Finally, the independent trustees have created a special committee, consisting of four independent trustees, to oversee the investigation and to formulate recommendations for further board action. As part of the investigation by the independent trustees, their independent counsel has been reviewing the examination of IFG and AIM currently being conducted by management's outside counsel. Response of AMVESCAP -------------------- AMVESCAP is seeking to resolve both the pending regulatory complaints against IFG alleging market timing and the ongoing market timing investigations with respect to IFG and AIM. AMVESCAP found, in its ongoing review of these matters, that shareholders were not always 2 effectively protected from the potential adverse impact of market timing and illegal late trading through intermediaries. These findings were based, in part, on an extensive economic analysis by outside experts who have been retained by AMVESCAP to examine the impact of these activities. In light of these findings, AMVESCAP has publicly stated that any AIM or INVESCO Fund, or any shareholders thereof, harmed by these activities will receive full restitution. AMVESCAP has informed regulators of these findings. In addition, AMVESCAP has retained separate outside counsel to undertake a comprehensive review of AIM's and IFG's policies, procedures and practices, with the objective that they rank among the most effective in the fund industry. At the direction of the trustees of the AIM and INVESCO Funds, AMVESCAP will pay all of the expenses incurred by the AIM and INVESCO Funds related to market timing, including expenses incurred in connection with the pending regulatory complaints against IFG alleging market timing and the ongoing market timing investigations with respect to IFG and AIM. There can be no assurance that AMVESCAP will be able to reach a satisfactory settlement with the regulators, or that any such settlement will not include terms which would have the effect of barring either or both of IFG and AIM, or any other investment advisor directly or indirectly owned by AMVESCAP, including but not limited to A I M Capital Management, Inc., AIM Funds Management, Inc., INVESCO Global Asset Management (N.A.), Inc., INVESCO Institutional (N.A.), Inc. ("IINA") and INVESCO Senior Secured Management, Inc., from serving as an investment advisor to any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (a "registered investment company"), including the Fund. The Fund has been informed by AIM that, if AIM is so barred, AIM will seek exemptive relief from the SEC to permit it to continue to serve as the Fund's investment advisor. There can be no assurance that such exemptive relief will be granted. Any settlement with the regulators could also include terms which would bar Mr. Cunningham from serving as an officer or director of any registered investment company. Private Actions Alleging Market Timing -------------------------------------- Multiple civil lawsuits, including purported class action and shareholder derivative suits, have been filed against various parties (including, depending on the lawsuit, certain INVESCO Funds, certain AIM Funds, IFG, AIM, AIM Management, AMVESCAP, certain related entities and certain of their officers, including Mr. Cunningham) making allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the regulatory complaints against IFG described above. These lawsuits allege a variety of theories of recovery, including but not limited to: (i) violation of various provisions of the Federal and state securities laws; (ii) violation of various provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"); (iii) breach of fiduciary duty; and (iv) breach of contract. These lawsuits have been filed in both Federal and state courts and seek such remedies as compensatory damages; restitution; rescission; accounting for wrongfully gotten gains, profits and compensation; injunctive relief; disgorgement; equitable relief; various corrective measures under ERISA; rescission of certain Funds' advisory agreements; declaration that the advisory agreement is unenforceable or void; refund of advisory fees; interest; and attorneys' and experts' fees. The following list identifies such lawsuits that have been served, or for which service of process has been waived, as of June 22, 2004: o MIKE SAYEGH, On Behalf of the General Public, v. JANUS CAPITAL CORPORATION, ET AL., in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC304655), filed on October 22, 2003 and amended on December 17, 2003 to substitute INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. and Raymond R. Cunningham for unnamed Doe defendants. 3 o RAJ SANYAL, Derivately On Behalf of NATIONS INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUND, ET AL., v. WILLIAM P. CARMICHAEL, ET AL., in the Superior Court Division, State of North Carolina (Civil Action No. 03-CVS-19622), filed on November 14, 2003. o L. SCOTT KARLIN, Derivatively On Behalf of INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. v. AMVESCAP, PLC, ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-MK-2406), filed on November 28, 2003. o RICHARD RAVER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO Funds Group, Inc., ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-F-2441), filed on December 2, 2003. o JERRY FATTAH, Custodian For BASIM FATTAH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO Advantage Health Sciences Fund, ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-F-2456), filed on December 4, 2003. o EDWARD LOWINGER and SHARON LOWINGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO Advantage Health Sciences Fund, ET AL., in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 03-CV-9634), filed on December 4, 2003. o JOEL GOODMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. AND Raymond R. Cunningham, in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado (Case Number 03CV9268), filed on December 5, 2003. o STEVEN B. EHRLICH, Custodian For ALEXA P. EHRLICH, UGTMA/FLORIDA, and DENNY P. JACOBSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-N-2559), filed on December 17, 2003. o JOSEPH R. RUSSO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, ET AL., in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 03-CV-10045), filed on December 18, 2003. o MIRIAM CALDERON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AMVESCAP PLC, ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-M-2604), filed on December 24, 2003. o PAT B. GORSUCH and GEORGE L. GORSUCH v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC. AND AIM ADVISER, INC., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-MK-2612), filed on December 24, 2003. o LORI WEINRIB, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-CV-00492), filed on January 21, 2004. 4 o ROBERT S. BALLAGH, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO Funds Group, Inc., ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0152), filed on January 28, 2004. o JONATHAN GALLO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO Funds Group, Inc., ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0151), filed on January 28, 2004. o EILEEN CLANCY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO Advantage Health Sciences Fund, ET AL., in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-CV-0713), filed on January 30, 2004. o SCOTT WALDMAN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-CV-00915), filed on February 3, 2004. o CARL E. VONDER HAAR and MARILYN P. MARTIN, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-CV-812), filed on February 5, 2004. o HENRY KRAMER, Derivatively On Behalf of INVESCO ENERGY FUND, ET AL., v. AMVESCAP, PLC, ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0397), filed on March 4, 2004. o CYNTHIA L. ESSENMACHER, Derivatively On Behalf of INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, ET AL., v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUPS, INC., ET AL., in the United States District Court, District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 04-CV-188), filed on March 29, 2004. IFG has removed certain of the state court proceedings to Federal District Court. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") has ruled that all actions pending in Federal court that allege market timing and/or late trading be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. Some of the cases against IFG and the other AMVESCAP defendants have already been transferred to the District of Maryland in accordance with the Panel's directive. AIM and IFG anticipate that in time most or all of the actions pending against them and the other AMVESCAP defendants alleging market timing and/or late trading will be transferred to the multidistrict litigation. Other Private Actions --------------------- Multiple civil lawsuits, including purported class action and shareholder derivative suits, have been filed against various parties (including, depending on the lawsuit, IFG, AIM, IINA, A I M Distributors, Inc. ("AIM Distributors") and INVESCO Distributors, Inc. ("INVESCO Distributors")) alleging that the defendants charged excessive advisory and distribution fees and failed to pass on to shareholders the perceived savings generated by economies of scale. Certain of these lawsuits also allege that the defendants adopted unlawful distribution plans. These lawsuits allege a variety of theories of recovery, including but not limited to: (i) violation of various provisions of the Federal securities laws; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; and/or (iii) breach of contract. These lawsuits have been filed in both Federal and state courts and seek such 5 remedies as damages; injunctive relief; rescission of certain Funds' advisory agreements and distribution plans; interest; prospective relief in the form of reduced fees; and attorneys' and experts' fees. The following list identifies such lawsuits that have been served, or for which service of process has been waived, as of June 22, 2004. o RONALD KONDRACKI v. AIM ADVISORS, INC. AND AIM DISTRIBUTOR, INC., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (Civil Action No. 04-263-DRH), filed on April 16, 2004. o DOLORES BERDAT, MARVIN HUNT, MADELINE HUNT, RANDAL C. BREVER and RHONDA LECURU v. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., INVESCO INSTITUTIONAL (N.A.), INC., INVESCO DISTRIBUTORS, INC., AIM ADVISORS, INC. AND AIM DISTRIBUTORS, INC., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (Case No. 8: 04CV978-T24 TBM), filed on April 29, 2004. o FERDINANDO PAPIA, FRED DUNCAN, GRACE GIAMANCO, JEFFREY S. THOMAS, COURTNEY KING, KATHLEEN BLAIR, HENRY BERDAT, RUTH MOCCIA, MURRAY BEASLEY and FRANCES J. BEASLEY v. A I M ADVISORS, INC. AND A I M DISTRIBUTORS, INC., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (Case No. 8: 04CV977-T17 MSS), filed on April 29, 2004. More detailed information regarding each of the cases identified above is provided in the Fund's statement of additional information. Additional lawsuits or regulatory actions arising out of the circumstances above and presenting similar allegations and requests for relief may be served or filed against the Fund, IFG, AIM, AIM Management, IINA, AIM Distributors, INVESCO Distributors, AMVESCAP and related entities and individuals in the future. Information about any similar additional lawsuits will be provided in the statement of additional information. As a result of the above developments, investors in the AIM and INVESCO Funds might react by redeeming their investments. This might require the Funds to sell investments to provide for sufficient liquidity and could also have an adverse effect on the investment performance of the Funds. In addition to the complaints and lawsuits described above, on December 17, 2003, a derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Civil Action No. H-03-5744), against AIM by Stanley Lieber, on behalf of, among others, one or more funds of the Registrant. This complaint alleges violations of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act") and breach of fiduciary duty, each with respect to the receipt of fees received pursuant to a plan adopted under Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act. The plaintiff in this action seeks remedies of compensatory damages, injunction and costs and disbursements, including the payment of attorneys' and experts' fees. 6