Invesco Asset Management Deutschland GmbH

Invesco Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

PROXY VOTING POLICY

Version: 1.1
Changes to previous Version: Format
Update of Appendix B

(INVESCO LOGO)

GENERAL POLICY

Invesco has responsibility for making investment decisions that are in the best interests of its clients. As part of the investment management services it provides to clients, Invesco may be authorized by clients to vote proxies appurtenant to the shares for which the clients are beneficial owners.

Invesco believes that it has a duty to manage clients' assets in the best economic interests of the clients and that the ability to vote proxies is a client asset.

Invesco reserves the right to amend its proxy policies and procedures from time to time without prior notice to its clients.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

VOTING OF PROXIES

Invesco will on a fund by fund basis, decide whether it will vote proxies and if so, for which parts of the portfolio it will voted for. If Invesco decides to vote proxies, it will do so in accordance with the procedures set forth below. If the client retains in writing the right to vote or if Invesco determines that any benefit the client might gain from voting a proxy would be outweighed by the costs associated therewith, it will refrain from voting.

BEST ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF CLIENTS

In voting proxies, Invesco will take into consideration those factors that may affect the value of the security and will vote proxies in a manner in which, in its opinion, is in the best economic interests of clients. Invesco endeavors to resolve any conflicts of interest exclusively in the best economic interests of clients.

CERTAIN PROXY VOTES MAY NOT BE CAST

In some cases, Invesco may determine that it is not in the best economic interests of clients to vote proxies. For example, proxy voting in certain countries outside the United States requires share blocking. Shareholders who wish to vote their proxies must deposit their shares 7 to 21 days before the date of the meeting with a designated depositary. During the blocked period, shares to be voted at the meeting cannot be sold until the meeting has taken place and the shares have been returned to the Custodian/Sub-Custodian bank. In addition, voting certain international securities may involve unusual costs to clients. In other cases, it may not be possible to vote certain proxies despite good faith efforts to do so, for instance when inadequate notice of the matter is provided. In the instance of loan securities, voting of proxies typically requires termination of the loan, so it is not usually in the best economic interests of clients to vote proxies on loaned securities. Invesco typically will not, but reserves the right to, vote where share blocking restrictions, unusual costs or other barriers to efficient voting apply. If Invesco does not vote, it would have made the determination that the cost of voting exceeds the expected benefit to the client.

ISS SERVICES

Invesco has contracted with Institutional Shareholder Services ("ISS"), an independent third party service provider, to vote Invesco's clients' proxies according to ISS's proxy voting recommendations. In addition, ISS will provide proxy analyses, vote recommendations, vote execution and record-keeping services for clients for which Invesco has proxy voting responsibility. On an annual basis, Invesco will review information obtained from ISS to ascertain whether ISS (i) has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues, and
(ii) can make such recommendations in an impartial manner and in the best economic interest of Invesco's clients. This may include a review of ISS' Policies, Procedures and Practices Regarding Potential Conflicts of Interests and obtaining information about the work ISS does for corporate issuers and the payments ISS receives from such issuers.

Custodians forward proxy materials for clients who rely on Invesco to vote proxies to ISS. ISS is responsible for exercising the voting rights in accordance with the ISS proxy voting guidelines. If Invesco

(INVESCO LOGO)

receives proxy materials in connection with a client's account where the client has, in writing, communicated to Invesco that the client, plan fiduciary or other third party has reserved the right to vote proxies, Invesco will forward to the party appointed by client any proxy materials it receives with respect to the account. In order to avoid voting proxies in circumstances where Invesco, or any of its affiliates have or may have any conflict of interest, real or perceived, Invesco has engaged ISS to provide the proxy analyses, vote recommendations and voting of proxies.

In the event that (i) ISS recuses itself on a proxy voting matter and makes no recommendation or (ii) Invesco decides to override the ISS vote recommendation, the Proxy Voting Committee (PVC) of the International Structured Products Group and the Compliance Officer will review the issue and direct ISS how to vote the proxies as described below.

ISS RECUSAL

When ISS makes no recommendation on a proxy voting issue or is recused due to a conflict of interest, the Proxy Voting Committee (PVC) of the International Structured Products Group and the Compliance Officer will review the issue and, if Invesco does not have a conflict of interest, direct ISS how to vote the proxies. In such cases where Invesco has a conflict of interest, Invesco, in its sole discretion, shall either (a) vote the proxies pursuant to ISS's general proxy voting guidelines, (b) engage an independent third party to provide a vote recommendation, or (c) contact its client(s) for direction as to how to vote the proxies.

OVERRIDE OF ISS RECOMMENDATION

There may be occasions where the Invesco investment personnel or senior officers seek to override ISS's recommendations if they believe that ISS's recommendations are not in accordance with the best economic interests of clients. In the event that an individual listed above in this section disagrees with an ISS recommendation on a particular voting issue, the individual shall document in writing the reasons that he/she believes that the ISS recommendation is not in accordance with clients' best economic interests and submit such written documentation to the Proxy Voting Committee (PVC) of the International Structured Products Group. Upon review of the documentation and consultation with the individual and others as the PVC deems appropriate, the PVC together with the Compliance Officer may make a determination to override the ISS voting recommendation if they determine that it is in the best economic interests of clients.

PROXY VOTING RECORDS

Clients may obtain information about how Invesco voted proxies on their behalf by contacting their client services representative. Alternatively, clients may make a written request for proxy voting information.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND IMPROPER INFLUENCE

In order to avoid voting proxies in circumstances where Invesco or any of its affiliates have or may have any conflict of interest, real or perceived, Invesco has contracted with ISS to provide proxy analyses, vote recommendations and voting of proxies. Unless noted otherwise by ISS, each vote recommendation provided by ISS to Invesco includes a representation from ISS that ISS faces no conflict of interest with respect to the vote. In instances where ISS has recused itself and makes no recommendation on a particular matter or if an override submission is requested, the Proxy Voting Committee (PVC) of the International Structured Products Group together with the Compliance Officer shall determine how the proxy is to be voted and instruct accordingly in which case the conflict of interest provisions discussed below shall apply.

In effecting the policy of voting proxies in the best economic interests of clients, there may be occasions where the voting of such proxies may present a real or perceived conflict of interest between Invesco, as the investment manager, and clients.

(INVESCO LOGO)

For each director, officer and employee of Invesco ("Invesco person"), the interests of Invesco's clients must come first, ahead of the interest of Invesco and any person within the Invesco organization, which includes Invesco's affiliates.

Accordingly, each Invesco person must not put "personal benefit," whether tangible or intangible, before the interests of clients of Invesco or otherwise take advantage of the relationship to Invesco's clients. "Personal benefit" includes any intended benefit for oneself or any other individual, company, group or organization of any kind whatsoever, except a benefit for a client of Invesco, as appropriate. It is imperative that each of Invesco's directors, officers and employees avoid any situation that might compromise, or call into question, the exercise of fully independent judgment in the interests of Invesco's clients.

Occasions may arise where a person or organization involved in the proxy voting process may have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest may also exist if Invesco has a business relationship with (or is actively soliciting business from) either the company soliciting the proxy or a third party that has a material interest in the outcome of a proxy vote or that is actively lobbying for a particular outcome of a proxy vote. An Invesco person shall not be considered to have a conflict of interest if the Invesco person did not know of the conflict of interest and did not attempt to influence the outcome of a proxy vote. Any individual with actual knowledge of a conflict of interest relating to a particular referral item shall disclose that conflict to the Compliance Officer.

The following are examples of situations where a conflict may exist:

- Business Relationships - where Invesco manages money for a company or an employee group, manages pension assets or is actively soliciting any such business, or leases office space from a company;

- Personal Relationships - where a Invesco person has a personal relationship with other proponents of proxy proposals, participants in proxy contests, corporate directors, or candidates for directorships; and

- Familial Relationships - where an Invesco person has a known familial relationship relating to a company (e.g. a spouse or other relative who serves as a director of a public company or is employed by the company).

In the event that Invesco (or an affiliate) manages assets for a company, its pension plan, or related entity and where clients' funds are invested in that company's shares, it will not take into consideration this relationship and will vote proxies in that company solely in the best economic interest of its clients.

It is the responsibility of the Invesco person to report any real or potential conflict of interest of which such individual has actual knowledge to the Compliance Officer, who shall present any such information to the Head of Continental Europe Compliance. However, once a particular conflict has been reported to the Compliance Officer, this requirement shall be deemed satisfied with respect to all individuals with knowledge of such conflict.

In addition, any Invesco person who submits an ISS override recommendation to the Proxy Voting Committee (PVC) of the International Structured Products Group shall certify as to their compliance with this policy concurrently with the submission of their override recommendation. A form of such certification is attached as Appendix A hereto.

In addition, the Proxy Voting Committee (PVC) of the International Structured Products Group must notify Invesco's Compliance Officer with impunity and without fear of retribution or retaliation, of any direct, indirect or perceived improper influence made by anyone within Invesco or by an affiliated company's representatives with regard to how Invesco should vote proxies. The Compliance Officer will investigate the allegations and will report his or her findings to the Invesco Risk Management Committee and to the Head of Continental Europe Compliance. In the event that it is determined that improper influence was made, the Risk Management Committee will determine the appropriate action to take which may include, but is not limited to,

(1) notifying the affiliated company's Chief Executive Officer, its Management Committee or Board of Directors,

(2) taking remedial action, if necessary, to correct the result of any improper influence where clients have been harmed, or

(3) notifying the appropriate regulatory agencies of the improper influence and to fully cooperate with these regulatory agencies as required. In all cases, the Proxy Voting Committee (PVC) of the International Structured Products Group together with the Compliance Officer shall not take into consideration the improper influence in determining how to vote proxies and will vote proxies solely in the best economic interest of clients.

ISS PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

A copy of ISS's Proxy Voting Guidelines Summary in effect as of the revised date set forth on the title page of this Proxy Voting Policy is attached hereto as Appendix B.

INVESCO PERPETUAL
POLICY ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
(Updated February 2008)

1. INTRODUCTION

Invesco Perpetual (IP), the trading name of Invesco Asset Management Limited, has adopted a clear and considered policy towards its responsibility as a shareholder. As part of this policy, IP will take steps to satisfy itself about the extent to which the companies in which it invests comply with local recommendations and practices, such as the UK Combined Code issued by the Committee on Corporate Governance and/or the U.S. Department of Labor Interpretive Bulletins.

2. RESPONSIBLE VOTING

IP has a responsibility to optimise returns to its clients. As a core part of the investment process, Fund Managers will endeavour to establish a dialogue with management to promote company decision making that is in the best interests of shareholders, and is in accordance with good Corporate Governance principles.

IP considers that shareholder activism is fundamental to good Corporate Governance. Whilst this does not entail intervening in daily management decisions, it does involve supporting general standards for corporate activity and, where necessary, taking the initiative to ensure those standards are met.

One important means of putting shareholder responsibility into practice is via the exercising of voting rights. In deciding whether to vote shares, IP will take into account such factors as the likely impact of voting on management activity, and where expressed, the preference of clients. As a result of these two factors, IP will tend to vote on all UK and European shares, but to vote on a more selective basis on other shares. (See Appendix I - Voting on non-UK/European shares)

IP considers that the voting rights attached to its clients' investments should be actively managed with the same duty of care as that applied to all other aspects of asset administration. As such, voting rights will be exercised on an informed and independent basis, and will not simply be passed back to the company concerned for discretionary voting by the Chairman. In doing this, IP will have in mind three objectives:

i) To protect the rights of its clients

ii) To minimise the risk of financial or business impropriety within the companies in which its clients are invested, and

iii) To protect the long-term value of its clients' investments.

It is important to note that, when exercising voting rights, a third option of abstention can also be used as a means of expressing dissatisfaction, or lack of support, to a Board on a particular issue. Additionally, in the event of a conflict of interest arising between IP and its clients over a specific issue, IP will either abstain or seek instruction from each client.

IP will exercise actively the voting rights represented by the shares it manages on behalf of its investors.

Note: Share Blocking

Generally, IP will not vote where this results in shares being blocked from trading for a period of more than a few hours. IP considers that it is not in the interest of clients that their shares are blocked at a potentially sensitive time, such as that around a shareholder meeting.

3. VOTING PROCEDURES

IP will endeavour to keep under regular review with trustees, depositaries and custodians the practical arrangements for circulating company resolutions and notices of meetings and for exercising votes in accordance with standing or special instructions.

IP will endeavour to review regularly any standing or special instructions on voting and where possible, discuss with company representatives any significant issues.

IP will take into account the implications of stock lending arrangements where this is relevant (that is, when stock is lent to the extent permitted by local regulations, the voting rights attaching to that stock pass to the borrower). If a stock is on loan and therefore cannot be voted, it will not necessarily be recalled in instances where we would vote with management. Individual IP Fund Managers enter securities lending arrangements at their own discretion and where they believe it is for the potential benefit of their investors.

4. DIALOGUE WITH COMPANIES

IP will endeavour, where practicable in accordance with its investment processes, to enter into a dialogue with companies based on the mutual understanding of objectives. This dialogue is likely to include regular meetings with company representatives to explore any concerns about corporate governance where these may impact on the best interests of clients. In discussion with Company Boards and senior non-Executive Directors, IP will endeavour to cover any matters with particular relevance to shareholder value.

Specifically when considering resolutions put to shareholders, IP will pay attention to the companies' compliance with the relevant local requirements. In addition, when analysing the company's prospects for future profitability and hence returns to shareholders, IP will take many variables into account, including but not limited to, the following:

- Nomination and audit committees

- Remuneration committee and directors' remuneration

- Board balance and structure

- Financial reporting principles

- Internal control system and annual review of its effectiveness

- Dividend and Capital Management policies

5. NON-ROUTINE RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER TOPICS

These will be considered on a case-by-case basis and where proposals are put to the vote will require proper explanation and justification by (in most instances) the Board. Examples of such would be all SRI issues (i.e. those with social, environmental or ethical connotations), political donations, and any proposal raised by a shareholder or body of shareholders (typically a pressure group).

Apart from the three fundamental voting objectives set out under 'Responsible Voting' above, considerations that IP might apply to non-routine proposals will include:

i) The degree to which the company's stated position on the issue could affect its reputation and/or sales, or leave it vulnerable to boycott or selective purchasing

ii) What other companies have done in response to the issue

iii) Whether implementation would achieve the objectives sought in the proposal

iv) Whether the matter is best left to the Board's discretion.

6. EVALUATION OF COMPANIES' CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

IP will, when evaluating companies' governance arrangements, particularly those relating to board structure and composition, give due weight to all relevant factors drawn to their attention.

7. DISCLOSURE

On request from clients, IP will in good faith provide records of voting instructions given to third parties such as trustees, depositaries and custodians provided that:

(i) in IP's discretion, to do so does not conflict with the best interests of other clients and

(ii) it is understood that IP will not be held accountable for the expression of views within such voting instructions and

(iii) IP are not giving any assurance nor undertaking any obligation to ensure that such instructions resulted in any votes actually being cast. Records of voting instructions within the immediate preceding 3 months will not normally be provided.

Note: The record of votes will reflect the voting instruction of the relevant Fund Manager. This may not be the same as votes actually cast as IP is entirely reliant on third parties complying promptly with such instructions to ensure that such votes are cast correctly. Accordingly, the provision of information relating to an instruction does not mean that a vote was actually cast, just that an instruction was given in accordance with a particular view taken.

INVESCO ASSET MANAGEMENT (JAPAN) LIMITED

(Quick Translation)

INTERNAL RULES ON PROXY VOTING EXECUTION

(PURPOSE)

ARTICLE 1

INVESCO Asset Management (Japan) Limited (referred to as "INVESCO" thereafter) assumes a fiduciary responsibility to vote proxies in the best interest of its trustors and beneficiaries. In addition, INVESCO acknowledges its responsibility as a fiduciary to vote proxies prudently and solely for the purpose of maximizing the economic values of trustors (investors) and beneficiaries. So that it may fulfill these fiduciary responsibilities to trustors (investors) and beneficiaries, INVESCO has adopted and implemented these internal rules reasonably designed to ensure that the business operations of the company to invest are appropriately conducted in the best interest of shareholders and are always monitored by the shareholders.

(PROXY VOTING POLICY)

ARTICLE 2

INVESCO exercises the voting right in the best interest of its trustors and beneficiaries not in the interests of the third parties. The interests of trustors and beneficiaries are defined as the increase of the value of the enterprise or the expansion of the economic value of the shareholders or to protect these values from the impairment.

(VOTING EXERCISE STRUCTURE)

ARTICLE 3

Please refer to the Article 2 of Proxy Voting basic Policy as per attached.

(PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES)

ARTICLE 4

Please refer to Proxy Voting Guidelines (Attachment 2).

(PROXY VOTING PROCESS)

ARTICLE 5

1. Domestic Equities

(1) Notification on the shareholder meeting will be delivered to Operations from trustee banks which will be in turn forwarded to the person in charge of equities investment. The instruction shall be handled by Operations.

(2) The person in charge of equities investment scrutinizes the subjects according to the "Screening Standard" and forward them to the proxy voting committee ("Committee").

(3) In case of asking for the outside counsel, to forward our proxy voting guidelines ("Guidelines") to them beforehand and obtain their advice

(4) In either case of 2 or 3, the person in charge shall make proposal to the Committee to ask for their "For", "Against", "Abstention", etc.

(5) The Committee scrutinizes the respective subjects and approves/disapproves with the quorum of two thirds according to the Guidelines.

(6) In case where as to the subject which the Committee judges as inappropriate according to the Guidelines and/or the subject which cannot obtain the quorum, the Committee will be held again to discuss the subject.

2. FOREIGN EQUITIES

(1) As to the voting exercise of the foreign equities, we shall consider the manners and customs of the foreign countries as well as the costs.

(2) As to the voting process, the above process of the domestic equities shall be accordingly adjusted and applied.

(DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION)

ARTICLE 6

In case of the request from the customers, we can disclose the content.

(VOTING RECORD)

ARTICLE 7

- The Committee preserves the record of Attachment 1 for one year.

- The administration office is the Investment Division which shall preserve all the related documents of this voting process.

- Operations which handle the instruction shall preserve the instruction documents for 10 years after the termination of the ITM funds or the termination of the investment advisory contracts.

Article 8 and addendum are omitted.

PROXY VOTING BASIC POLICY

1. Basic Thought on Proxy Voting

- INVESCO makes efforts to maximize the entrusted assets in terms of fiduciary duties in investing the funds entrusted by the trustors (investors) and the beneficiaries.

- For the purpose of maximizing the invested assets and the value of the equities, INVESCO always monitors the invested companies to operate appropriately as a shareholder in the best interests of the shareholders.

- From the above point of view, INVESCO has adopted and implemented this Proxy Voting Basic Policy and Proxy Voting Policy and Procedure to fulfill the proxy voting rights properly.

- In exercising the proxy voting rights, INVESCO fulfills the voting rights in the benefits of the trustors (investors) and the beneficiaries not in the benefits of the third parties.

2. Voting Process and Structure

- INVESCO establishes the Proxy Voting Committee (referred to as "Committee" thereafter) which executes the proxy voting rights.

- The Committee is composed of the chairman who is designated by Japanese Management Committee (referred to as "J-Mac" thereafter) and the members appointed by the chairman. Persons in charge of Investment Division and Legal & Compliance Division shall be mandatory members.

- The Committee has been delegated the judgment power to execute the voting right from the J-Mac.

- The Committee has worked out the subjects according to the pre-determined "Screening Standard" in terms of benefits of the shareholders and executes the voting rights based on the "Proxy Voting Guidelines".

- The Committee is occasionally taken the advice from the outside parties according to the "Proxy Voting Guidelines".

- The Committee is held on a monthly basis and the result of the voting execution is to be reported to J-Mac on a monthly basis at least.

3. Screening Standard

For the purpose of efficient voting execution, INVESCO implements the following screening criteria. The companies fallen under this screening criteria shall be scrutinized according to "Voting Guidelines".

(1) Quantitative Standard

1) Low profit margin of operational income and recurrent income for certain periods

2) Negative Net Assets/Insolvency

3) Extremely High Dividend Ratios or Low Dividend Ratios

(2) Qualitative Standard

1) In breach of the substantial laws or anti-social activities for the past one year

2) Impairment of the interests of the shareholders for the past one year

(3) Others

1) External Auditor's Audit Report with the limited auditor's opinion

2) Shareholders' proposals

4. Proxy Voting Guidelines

(1) General Subjects

1) Any violation of laws and anti-social activities?

2) Inappropriate disclosure which impairs the interests of shareholders?

3) Enough Business Improvement Efforts?

(2) Subjects on Financial Statements

Any reasonable reasons for Interest Appropriation/Loss Disposal?

(3) Amendments to Articles of Incorporations, etc.

Any possibility of the limitation to the shareholder's rights?

(4) Directors/Statutory Auditors

Appointment of the unqualified person, or inappropriate amount of payment/gifts to the unqualified person?

(5) Capital Policy/Business Policy

Unreasonable policy in terms of maximization of the shareholders' interests?

(6) Others

1) Shareholder's Proposals

Contribution to the increase of the shareholders' economic interests?

2) Appointment of Auditor

Any problem of independency?

Company Name:                                                                               Year   Month
-------------                                                                               ----   -----
Screening Criteria/Quantitative Criteria (consolidated or (single))
                                                                                             Yes     No
Consecutive unprofitable settlements for the past 3 years
Consecutive Non dividend payments for the past 3 years
Operational loss for the most recent fiscal year
Negative net assets for the most recent fiscal year
Less than 10% or more than 100% of the dividend ratios for the most recent fiscal year

Screening Criteria/Qualitative Criteria
                                                                                             Yes     No
Substantial breach of the laws/anti-social activities for the past one year
   If Yes, describe the content of the breach of the law/anti-social activities:
Others, especially, any impairment of the value of the shareholders for the past one year
   If Yes, describe the content of the impairment of the value of shareholders:
Others
                                                                                             Yes     No
External Auditor's report with the limited auditor's opinion
Shareholder's proposal

Person in charge of equities investment   Initial   Signature
---------------------------------------   -------   ---------

- If all Nos (ARROW) No objection to the agenda of the shareholders' meeting

- If one or more Yes (ARROW) (Person in charge of equities investment shall fill out the blanks below and forward to the Committee)

Chairman   For   Against   Initial   Signature
Member     For   Against   Initial   Signature
Member     For   Against   Initial   Signature
Member     For   Against   Initial   Signature
Member     For   Against   Initial   Signature
Member     For   Against   Initial   Signature

(Attachment 2)

Proxy Voting Guidelines

1. PURPORT OF GUIDELINES

Pursuant to Article 2 of Proxy Voting Policy and Procedure, INVESCO has adopted and implemented the following guidelines and hereby scrutinizes and decides the subjects one by one in light of the guidelines.

2. GUIDELINES

(1) General Subjects

1) Any violation of laws and anti-social activities?

- To scrutinize and judge respectively the substantial impact over the company's business operations by the above subjects or the impairment of the shareholders' economic value.

2) Inappropriate disclosure which impairs the interests of shareholders?

- To scrutinize and judge respectively the potential impairment of the shareholder's economic value.

3) Enough Business Improvement Efforts?

- Although the continuous extremely unprofitable and the extremely bad performance, the management is in short of business improvement efforts. To scrutinize and judge respectively the cases.

(2) Subjects on Financial Statements

1) Interest Appropriation Plan

(1) Interest Appropriation Plan (Dividends)

- To basically approve unless the extremely overpayment or minimum payment of the dividends

(2) Interest Appropriation Plan (Bonus payment to corporate officers

- To basically agree but in case where the extremely unprofitable, for example, the consecutive unprofitable and no dividend payments or it is apparent of the impairment of the shareholder's value, to request to decrease the amount or no bonus payment pay the bonus to the corporate officers without prior assessment.

2) Loss Disposal Plan

To scrutinize and judge respectively

(3) Amendments to Articles of Incorporation, etc.

1) Company Name Change/Address Change, etc.

2) Change of Purpose/Method of Public Announcement

3) Change of Business Operations, etc.

4) Change of Stipulations on Shareholders/Shareholders Meeting

5) Change of Stipulations on Directors/Board of Directors/Statutory Auditors

- To basically approve however, in case of the possibility of the limitation to the shareholders' rights, to judge respectively

(4) Subjects on Corporate Organization

1) Composition of Board of Directors Meeting, etc

- To basically approve the introduction of "Committee Installation Company "or "Substantial Asset Control Institution"

- To basically approve the introduction of the corporate officer institution. Provided, however, that in case where all directors are concurrent with those committee members and the institutions, to basically disagree. In case of the above introduction, to basically disapprove to the decrease of the board members or adjustment of the remuneration.

2) Appointment of Directors

- To basically disagree in case where the increase of the board members which is deemed to be overstaffed and no explanatory comments on the increase. In case of 21 or more board members, to respectively judge.

- To basically disagree the re-appointment of the existing directors in case where the consecutive unprofitable settlements for the past 3 years and the consecutive 3 year no dividend payments, or the consecutive decrease in the net profits for the past 5 years.

- To basically disagree the re-appointment of the existing directors in case where the scandal of the breach of the laws and the anti-social activities occurred and caused the substantial impact over the business operations during his/her assignment.

3) Appointment of Outside Directors

- To basically agree after the confirmation of its independency based on the information obtained from the possible data sources.

- To basically disagree the decrease in number.

- To basically disagree the job concurrence of the competitors' CEO, COO, CFO or concurrence of the outside directors of 4 or more companies.

- To basically disagree in case of no-independence of the company

- To basically disagree the extension of the board of directors' term.

4) Appointment of Statutory Auditors

- To basically disagree the appointment of the candidate who is appointed as a director and a statutory auditor by turns.

- To basically disagree the re-appointment of the existing directors in case where the scandal of the breach of the laws and the anti-social activities occurred and caused the substantial impact over the business operations during his/her assignment.

5) Appointment of Outside Statutory Auditors

- To basically disagree in case where the outside statutory auditor is not actually the outside auditor (the officer or employee of the parent company, etc.)

- To basically disagree in case where the reason of the decrease in the number is not clearly described.

- To basically agree in case where the introduction of the "Statutory Auditor Appointment Committee" which includes plural outside statutory auditors.

(5) Officer Remuneration/officer Retirement Allowances

1) Officer Remuneration

- To basically disagree the amendment of the officer remuneration (unless the decrease in amount or no payment) in case where the consecutive unprofitable settlements for the past 3 years and the consecutive 3 year no dividend payments, or the consecutive decrease in the net profits for the past 5 years.

- To basically disagree and scrutinize respectively in case where no sufficient explanation of the substantial increase (10% or more per head), or no decrease of the remuneration amount if the number of the officers decrease.

2) Officer Retirement Allowance

- To basically approve

- To basically disapprove in case where the payment of the allowance to the outside statutory auditors and the outside directors.

- To basically disapprove in case where the officer resigned or retired during his/her assignment due to the scandal of the breach of the laws and the anti-social activities.

- To basically disagree in case where the consecutive unprofitable settlements for the past 3 years and the consecutive 3 year no dividend payments, or the consecutive decrease in the net profits for the past 5 years.

2. CAPITAL POLICY/BUSINESS POLICY

1) Acquisition of Own shares

- To basically approve

- To basically approve the disposition of the own sharers if the disposition ratio of less than 10% of the total issued shares and the shareholders' equities. In case of 10% or more, to respectively scrutinize.

2) Capital Reduction

- To basically disagree in case where the future growth of the business might be substantially decreased.

3) Increase of the authorized capital

- To basically disagree in case of the substantial increase of the authorized capital taking into consideration the dilution of the voting right (10% or more) and incentive.

4) Granting of the stock options to Directors, Statutory Auditors and Employees

- To basically approve

- To basically disagree in case where the substantial dilution of the value of the stocks (the potential dilution ration is to increase 5% of the total issued stock number) will occur and accordingly decrease of the shareholders' interests.

- To basically disagree in case where the exercise price is deviated by 10% or more from the market value as of the fiscal year-end

- To basically disagree the decrease of the exercise price
(re-pricing)

- To basically disagree in case where the exercise term remains less than 1 year.

- To basically disagree in case the scope of the option granted objectives (transaction counterparties) is not so closely connected with the better performance.

5) Mergers and Acquisitions

- To basically disagree in case where the terms and conditions are not advantageous and there is no assessment base by the thirdparty.

- To basically disagree in case where the content of the mergers and acquisitions can not be deemed to be reasonable in comparison with the business strategy.

6) Business Transfer/Acceptance

- To basically disagree in case where the content of the mergers and acquisitions can not be deemed to be reasonable and extremely unprofitable in comparison with the business strategy.

7) Capital Increase by the allocation to the thirdparties

- To basically analyze on a case by case basis

- Provided, however, that to basically approve in case where the companies under the financial difficulties executes as the restructuring of the business.

(7) Others

1) Appointment of Accountant

- To basically approve

- To basically disapprove on suspicion of its independency.

- To scrutinize the subjects in case where the decline of the re-appointment due to the conflict of the audit policy.

2) Shareholders' proposal

- To basically analyze on a case by case basis

- The basic judgment criterion is the contribution to the increase of the shareholders' value. However, to basically disapprove in case where to maneuver as a method to resolve the specific social and political problems.

PROXY POLICY APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING:
INVESCO AUSTRALIA LIMITED

PROXY VOTING POLICY

1. Purpose of this Policy

INVESCO recognises its fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of all clients, be they superannuation trustees, institutional clients, unit-holders in managed investment schemes or personal investors. One way INVESCO represents its clients in matters of corporate governance is through the proxy voting process.

This document sets out INVESCO's policy in relation to proxy voting. It has been approved by the INVESCO Australia Limited Board.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all INVESCO portfolios with the following exceptions:

- "index" or "index like" funds where, due to the nature of the funds, INVESCO will generally abstain from voting;

- private client or discrete wholesale mandates, where the voting policy has been agreed within the mandate;

- where investment management of an international fund has been delegated to an overseas AMVESCAP or INVESCO company, proxy voting will rest with that delegated manager.

3. Policy

In accordance with industry practices and the IFSA standard on proxy voting, our policy is as follows:

- INVESCO's overriding principle is that votes will be cast in the best economic interests of investors.

- INVESCO's intention is to vote on all Australian Company shareholder resolutions however it recognises that in some circumstances it would be inappropriate to vote, or its vote may be immaterial. INVESCO will generally abstain from voting on "routine" company resolutions (eg approval of financial accounts or housekeeping amendments to Articles of Association or Constitution) unless its clients' portfolios in aggregate represent a significant proportion of the shareholdings of the company in question (a significant proportion in this context means 5% or more of the market capitalisation of the company).

- INVESCO will always vote on the following issues arising in company Annual General Meetings where it has the authority to do so on behalf of clients.

- contentious issues (eg. issues of perceived national interest, or where there has been extensive press coverage or public comment);

- employee and executive share and option schemes;

- approval of changes of substantial shareholdings;

- mergers or schemes of arrangement; and

- approval of major asset sales or purchases.

- Management agreements or mandates for individually-managed clients will provide direction as to who has responsibility for voting.

- In the case of existing management agreements which do not contain a provision concerning voting authority or are ambiguous on the subject, INVESCO will not vote until clear instructions have been received from the client.

- In the case of clients who wish to place special conditions on the delegation of proxy voting powers, INVESCO will endeavour to accommodate those clients' requirements as far as

practicable, subject to any administrative obstacles or additional costs that might arise in implementing the conditions.

- In considering proxy voting issues arising in respect of unit-holders in managed investment schemes, INVESCO will act solely in accordance with its fiduciary responsibility to take account of the collective interests of unit-holders in the scheme as a whole. INVESCO cannot accept instructions from individual unit-holders as to the exercise of proxy voting authority in a particular instance.

- In order to facilitate its proxy voting process, INVESCO may retain a professional proxy voting service to assist with in-depth proxy research, vote execution, and the necessary record keeping.

4. Reporting and Disclosure

A written record will be kept of the voting decision in each case, and of the reasons for each decision (including abstentions).

INVESCO will disclose on an annual basis, a summary of its proxy voting statistics on its website as required by IFSA standard No. 13 - Proxy Voting.

5. Conflicts of Interest

All INVESCO employees are under an obligation to be aware of the potential for conflicts of interest with respect to voting proxies on behalf of clients.

INVESCO acknowledges that conflicts of interest do arise and where a conflict of interest is considered material, INVESCO will not vote until a resolution has been agreed upon and implemented.

PROXY POLICY APPLIES
TO THE FOLLOWING:
INVESCO HONG KONG LIMITED

INVESCO HONG KONG LIMITED

PROXY VOTING POLICY

8 APRIL 2004

Introduction                                            2
1. Guiding Principles                                   3
2. Proxy Voting Authority                               4
3. Key Proxy Voting Issues                              7
4. Internal Admistration and Decision-Making Process   10
5. Client Reporting                                    12

INTRODUCTION

This policy sets out Invesco's approach to proxy voting in the context of our broader portfolio management and client service responsibilities. It applies to Asia related equity portfolios managed by Invesco on behalf of individually-managed clients and pooled fund clients

Invesco's proxy voting policy is expected to evolve over time to cater for changing circumstances or unforeseen events.

1. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1.1 Invesco recognises its fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of all clients, be they retirement scheme trustees, institutional clients, unitholders in pooled investment vehicles or personal investors. The application of due care and skill in exercising shareholder responsibilities is a key aspect of this fiduciary obligation.

1.2 The sole objective of Invesco's proxy voting policy is to promote the economic interests of its clients. At no time will Invesco use the shareholding powers exercised in respect of its clients' investments to advance its own commercial interests, to pursue a social or political cause that is unrelated to clients' economic interests, or to favour a particular client or other relationship to the detriment of others.

1.3 Invesco also recognises the broader chain of accountability that exists in the proper governance of corporations, and the extent and limitations of the shareholder's role in that process. In particular, it is recognised that company management should ordinarily be presumed to be best placed to conduct the commercial affairs of the enterprise concerned, with prime accountability to the enterprise's Board of Directors which is in turn accountable to shareholders and to external regulators and exchanges. The involvement of Invesco as an institutional shareholder will not extend to interference in the proper exercise of Board or management responsibilities, or impede the ability of companies to take the calculated commercial risks which are essential means of adding value for shareholders.

1.4 The primary aim of the policy is to encourage a culture of performance among investee companies, rather than one of mere conformance with a prescriptive set of rules and constraints. Rigid adherence to a checklist approach to corporate governance issues is of itself unlikely to promote the maximum economic performance of companies, or to cater for circumstances in which non-compliance with a checklist is appropriate or unavoidable.

1.5 Invesco considers that proxy voting rights are an asset which should be managed with the same care as any other asset managed on behalf of its clients.

2. PROXY VOTING AUTHORITY

2.1 An important dimension of Invesco's approach to corporate governance is the exercise of proxy voting authority at the Annual General Meetings or other decision-making forums of companies in which we manage investments on behalf of clients.

2.2 An initial issue to consider in framing a proxy voting policy is the question of where discretion to exercise voting power should rest - with Invesco as the investment manager, or with each individual client? Under the first alternative, Invesco's role would be both to make voting decisions on clients' behalf and to implement those decisions. Under the second alternative, Invesco would either have no role to play, or its role would be limited solely to implementing voting decisions under instructions from our clients.

2.3 In addressing this issue, it is necessary to distinguish the different legal structures and fiduciary relationships which exist as between individually-managed clients, who hold investments directly on their own accounts, and pooled fund clients, whose investments are held indirectly under a trust structure.

2.4 INDIVIDUALLY-MANAGED CLIENTS

2.4.1 As a matter of general policy, Invesco believes that unless a client's mandate gives specific instructions to the contrary, discretion to exercise votes should normally rest with the investment manager, provided that the discretion is always exercised in the client's interests alone.

2.4.2 The reason for this position is that Invesco believes that, with its dedicated research resources and ongoing monitoring of companies, an investment manager is usually better placed to identify issues upon which a vote is necessary or desirable. We believe it is also more practical that voting discretion rests with the party that has the authority to buy and sell shares, which is essentially what investment managers have been engaged to do on behalf of their clients.

2.4.3 In cases where voting authority is delegated by an individually-managed client, Invesco recognises its responsibility to be accountable for the decisions it makes. If a client requires, an appropriate reporting mechanism will be put in place.

2.4.4 While it is envisaged that the above arrangements will be acceptable in the majority of cases, it is recognised that some individually-managed clients will wish to retain voting authority for themselves, or to place conditions on the circumstances in which it can be exercised by investment managers. In practice, it is believed that this option is generally only likely to arise with relatively large clients such as trustees of major superannuation funds or statutory corporations which have the resources to develop their own policies and to supervise their implementation by investment managers and custodians. In particular, clients who have multiple equity managers and utilise a master custody arrangement may be more likely to consider retaining voting authority in order to ensure consistency of approach across their total portfolio.

2.4.5 In any event, whatever decision is taken as to where voting authority should lie, Invesco believes that the matter should be explicitly covered by the terms of the investment management agreement and clearly understood by the respective parties.

2.4.6 Accordingly, Invesco will pursue the following policies with respect to the exercise of proxy voting authority for individually-managed clients:

PROXY VOTING AUTHORITY

Individually-Managed Clients

Unless an individually-managed client wishes to retain proxy voting authority, Invesco will assume proxy voting authority by way of delegation from the client, provided that the allocation of proxy voting responsibility is clearly set out in the investment management agreement.

In the case of clients who wish to place special conditions on the delegation of proxy voting powers, Invesco will endeavour to accommodate those clients' requirements as far as practicable, subject to any administrative obstacles or additional costs that might arise in implementing the conditions.

2.5 POOLED FUND CLIENTS

2.5.1 The legal relationship between an investment manager and its pooled fund clients is different in a number of important respects from that applying to individually-managed clients. These differences have a bearing on how proxy voting authority is exercised on behalf of pooled fund clients.

2.5.2 These legal relationships essentially mean that the manager is required to act solely in the collective interests of unitholders at large rather than as a direct agent or delegate of each unitholder. On the issue of proxy voting, as with all other aspects of our client relationships, Invesco will naturally continue to be receptive to any views and concerns raised by its pooled fund clients. However, the legal relationship that exists means it is not possible for the manager to accept instructions from a particular pooled fund client as to how to exercise proxy voting authority in a particular instance.

2.5.3 As in the case of individually-managed clients who delegate their proxy voting authority, Invesco's accountability to pooled fund clients in exercising its fiduciary responsibilities is best addressed as part of the manager's broader client relationship and reporting responsibilities.

2.5.4 Accordingly, Invesco will pursue the following policies with respect to the exercise of proxy voting authority for pooled fund clients:

PROXY VOTING AUTHORITY

Pooled Fund Clients

In considering proxy voting issues arising in respect of pooled fund shareholdings, Invesco will act solely in accordance with its fiduciary responsibility to take account of the collective interests of unitholders in the pooled fund as a whole.

Invesco cannot accept instructions from individual unitholders as to the exercise of proxy voting authority in a particular instance.

3. KEY PROXY VOTING ISSUES

3.1 This section outlines Invesco's intended approach in cases where proxy voting authority is being exercised on clients' behalf.

3.2 Invesco will vote on all material issues at all company meetings where it has the voting authority and responsibility to do so. We will not announce our voting intentions and the reasons behind them.

3.3 Invesco applies two underlying principles. First, our interpretation of 'material voting issues' is confined to those issues which affect the value of shares we hold on behalf of clients and the rights of shareholders to an equal voice in influencing the affairs of companies in proportion to their shareholdings. We do not consider it appropriate to use shareholder powers for reasons other than the pursuit of these economic interests. Second, we believe that a critical factor in the development of an optimal corporate governance policy is the need to avoid unduly diverting resources from our primary responsibilities to add value to our clients' portfolios through investment performance and client service.

3.4 In order to expand upon these principles, Invesco believes it is necessary to consider the role of proxy voting policy in the context of broader portfolio management and administrative issues which apply to our investment management business as a whole. These are discussed as follows.

3.5 PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT ISSUES - ACTIVE EQUITY PORTFOLIOS

3.5.1 While recognising in general terms that issues concerning corporate governance practices can have a significant bearing on the financial performance of companies, the primary criterion for the selection and retention of a particular stock in active equity portfolios remains our judgment that the stock will deliver superior investment performance for our clients, based on our investment themes and market analysis.

3.5.2 In view of these dynamics, Invesco does not consider it feasible or desirable to prescribe in advance comprehensive guidelines as to how it will exercise proxy voting authority in all circumstances. The primary aim of Invesco's approach to corporate governance is to encourage a culture of performance among the companies in which we manage investments in order to add value to our clients' portfolios, rather than one of mere conformance with a prescriptive set of rules and constraints.

3.5.3 Nevertheless, Invesco has identified a limited range of issues upon which it will always exercise proxy voting authority - either to register disapproval of management proposals or to demonstrate support for company initiatives through positive use of voting powers. These issues are outlined as follows:

KEY VOTING ISSUES

Major Corporate Proposals

Invesco will always vote on the following issues arising in company General Meetings where it has the authority to do so on behalf of clients.

- contentious issues (eg. issues of perceived national interest, or where there has

- been extensive press coverage or public comment);

- approval of changes of substantial shareholdings;

- mergers or schemes of arrangement; and

- approval of major asset sales or purchases.

As a general rule, Invesco will vote against any actions that will reduce the rights or options of shareholders, reduce shareholder influence over the board of directors and management, reduce the alignment of interests between management and shareholders, or reduce the value of shareholders' investments, unless balanced by reasonable increase in net worth of the shareholding.

Where appropriate, Invesco will also use voting powers to influence companies to adopt generally accepted best corporate governance practices in areas such as board composition, disclosure policies and the other areas of recommended corporate governance practice.

Invesco's approach to significant proxy voting issues which fall outside these areas will be addressed on their merits.

3.6 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

3.6.1 In addition to the portfolio management issues outlined above, Invesco's proxy voting policy also takes account of administrative and cost implications, together with the size of our holdings as compared to the issue size, involved in the exercise of proxy voting authority on our clients' behalf.

3.6.2 There are practical constraints to the implementation of proxy voting decisions. Proxy voting is a highly seasonal activity, with most company Annual General Meetings being collapsed into a few months, with short deadlines for the distribution and return of notice papers, multiple resolutions from multiple companies being considered simultaneously, and under a legal system which is essentially dependent upon paper-based communication and record-keeping.

3.6.3 In addition, for investment managers such as Invesco who do not invest as principals and who consequently do not appear directly on the share registers of companies, all of these communications are channelled through external custodians, among whom there is in turn a considerable variation in the nature and quality of systems to deal with the flow of information.

3.6.4 While Invesco has the systems in place to efficiently implement proxy voting decisions when required, it can be seen that administrative and cost considerations by necessity play an important role in the application of a responsible proxy voting policy. This is particularly so bearing in mind the extremely limited time period within which voting decisions must often be made and implemented (which can in practice be as little as a few days). This factor also explains why Invesco resists any suggestion that there should be compulsory proxy voting on all issues, as in our view this would only increase the costs to be borne by our clients with very little practical improvement in corporate performance in most cases.

3.6.5 These administrative constraints are further highlighted by the fact that many issues on which shareholders are in practice asked to vote are routine matters relating to the ongoing administration of the company - eg. approval of financial accounts or housekeeping amendments to Articles of Association. Generally in such cases, we will be in favour of the motion as most companies take seriously their duties and are acting in the best interests of shareholders. However, the actual casting of a "yes" vote on all such resolutions in our view would entail an unreasonable administrative workload and cost.

3.6.6 Accordingly, Invesco believes that an important consideration in the framing of a proxy voting policy is the need to avoid unduly diverting resources from our primary responsibilities to add

value to our clients' investments through portfolio management and client service. The policies outlined below have been prepared on this basis.

KEY PROXY VOTING ISSUES

Administrative Constraints

In view of the administrative constraints and costs involved in the exercise of proxy voting powers, Invesco may (depending on circumstances) not exercise its voting right unless its clients' portfolios in aggregate represent a significant proportion of the shareholdings of the company in question.

A significant proportion in this context means 5% or more of the market capitalisation of the company.

4. INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION & DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

4.1 The following diagram illustrates the procedures adopted by Invesco for the administration of proxy voting:

      ----------------------
              COMPANY
      ----------------------
                |
                |  Notice Paper
               \|/
---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
Custodian   Custodian   Custodian   Custodian   Custodian   Custodian   Custodian   (etc)
  No. 1       No. 2       No. 3       No. 4       No. 5       No. 6       No. 7
---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
              |  /|\
Courier /     |   |       INSTRUCTION OF VOTING
Fax advice    |   |
             \|/  |
      ----------------------
        IAL Settlement Team  <----
      ----------------------      |
                |                 |
                |  Memo           |
               \|/                |
      ----------------------      |
          Primary Equity          |     ADVISE DECISION
      Investment Manager for      |     (RETURN EMAIL)
          relevant market         |
      ----------------------      |
                |                 |
                |  Decision       |
               \|/                |
      ----------------------      |
              Vote            ----
      ----------------------

4.2 As shown by the diagram, a central administrative role is performed by our Settlement Team, located within the Client Administration section. The initial role of the Settlement Team is to receive company notice papers via the range of custodians who hold shares on behalf of our clients, to ascertain which client portfolios hold the stock, and to initiate the decision-making process by distributing the company notice papers to the Primary Investment Manager responsible for the company in question.

4.3 A voting decision on each company resolution (whether a yes or no vote, or a recommended abstention) is made by the Primary Investment Manager responsible for the company in question. Invesco believes that this approach is preferable to the appointment of a committee with responsibility for handling voting issues across all companies, as it takes advantage of the expertise of individuals whose professional lives are occupied by analysing particular companies and sectors, and who are familiar with the issues facing particular companies through their regular company visits.

4.4 Moreover, the Primary Equity Manager has overall responsibility for the relevant market and this ensures that similar issues which arise in different companies are handled in a consistent way across the relevant market.

4.5 The voting decision is then documented and passed back to the Settlement Team, who issue the voting instructions to each custodian in advance of the closing date for receipt of proxies by the company. At the same time, the Settlement Team logs all proxy voting activities for record keeping or client reporting purposes.

4.6 A key task in administering the overall process is the capture and dissemination of data from companies and custodians within a time frame that makes exercising votes feasible in practice. This applies particularly during the company Annual General Meeting "season", when there are typically a large number of proxy voting issues under consideration

simultaneously. Invesco has no control over the former dependency and Invesco's ability to influence a custodian's service levels are limited in the case of individually-managed clients, where the custodian is answerable to the client.

4.7 The following policy commitments are implicit in these administrative and decision-making processes:

INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Invesco will consider all resolutions put forward in the Annual General Meetings or other decision-making forums of all companies in which investments are held on behalf of clients, where it has the authority to exercise voting powers. This consideration will occur in the context of our policy on Key Voting Issues outlined in Section 3.

The voting decision will be made by the Primary Investment Manager responsible for the market in question.

A written record will be kept of the voting decision in each case, and in case of an opposing vote, the reason/comment for the decision.

Voting instructions will be issued to custodians as far as practicable in advance of the deadline for receipt of proxies by the company. Invesco will monitor the efficiency with which custodians implement voting instructions on clients' behalf.

Invesco's ability to exercise proxy voting authority is dependent on timely receipt of notification from the relevant custodians.

5. CLIENT REPORTING

5.1 Invesco will keep records of its proxy voting activities.

5.2 Upon client request, Invesco will regularly report back to the client on proxy voting activities for investments owned by the client.

5.2 The following points summarise Invesco's policy commitments on the reporting of proxy voting activities to clients (other than in cases where specific forms of client reporting are specified in the client's mandate):

CLIENT REPORTING

Where proxy voting authority is being exercised on a client's behalf, a statistical summary of voting activity will be provided on request as part of the client's regular quarterly report.

Invesco will provide more detailed information on particular proxy voting issues in response to requests from clients wherever possible.

Proxy policy applies to the following:

INVESCO INSTITUTIONAL (N.A.), INC.
INVESCO GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (N.A.), INC.
INVESCO SENIOR SECURED MANAGEMENT, INC.

(INVESCO LOGO)

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

AND

PROCEDURES

March, 2009

GENERAL POLICY

Each of Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc. its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and Invesco Global Asset Management (N.A.), Inc. (collectively, "Invesco"), has responsibility for making investment decisions that are in the best interests of its clients. As part of the investment management services it provides to clients, Invesco may be authorized by clients to vote proxies appurtenant to the shares for which the clients are beneficial owners.

Invesco believes that it has a duty to manage clients' assets in the best economic interests of its clients and that the ability to vote proxies is a client asset.

Invesco reserves the right to amend its proxy policies and procedures from time to time without prior notice to its clients.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

VOTING OF PROXIES

Invesco will vote client proxies relating to equity securities in accordance with the procedures set forth below unless a non-ERISA client retains in writing the right to vote, the named fiduciary (e.g., the plan sponsor) of an ERISA client retains in writing the right to direct the plan trustee or a third party to vote proxies, or Invesco determines that any benefit the client might gain from voting a proxy would be outweighed by the costs associated therewith. In addition, due to the distinct nature of proxy voting for interests in fixed income assets and stable value wrap agreements, the proxies for such fixed income assets and stable value wrap agreements will be voted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the "Proxy Voting for Fixed Income Assets and Stable Value Wrap Agreements" section below.

BEST ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF CLIENTS

In voting proxies, Invesco will take into consideration those factors that may affect the value of the security and will vote proxies in a manner in which, in its opinion, is in the best economic interests of clients. Invesco endeavors to resolve any conflicts of interest exclusively in the best economic interests of clients.

RISKMETRICS' SERVICES

Invesco has contracted with RiskMetrics Group ("RiskMetrics," formerly known as ISS), an independent third party service provider, to vote Invesco's clients' proxies according to RiskMetrics' proxy voting recommendations determined by RiskMetrics pursuant to its then-current US Proxy Voting Guidelines, a summary of which can be found at http://www.riskmetrics.com and which are deemed to be incorporated herein. In addition, RiskMetrics will provide proxy analyses, vote recommendations, vote execution and record-keeping services for clients for which Invesco has proxy voting responsibility. On an annual basis, the Proxy Voting Committee will review information obtained from RiskMetrics to ascertain whether RiskMetrics (i) has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues, and (ii) can make such recommendations in an impartial manner and in the best economic interests of Invesco's clients. This may include a review of RiskMetrics' Policies, Procedures and Practices Regarding Potential Conflicts of Interest and obtaining information about the work RiskMetrics does for corporate issuers and the payments RiskMetrics receives from such issuers.

Custodians forward to RiskMetrics proxy materials for clients who rely on Invesco to vote proxies. RiskMetrics is responsible for exercising the voting rights in accordance with the RiskMetrics proxy voting guidelines. If Invesco receives proxy materials in connection with a client's account where the client has, in writing, communicated to Invesco that the client, plan fiduciary or other third party has reserved the right to vote proxies, Invesco will forward to the party appointed by client any proxy materials it receives

with respect to the account. In order to avoid voting proxies in circumstances where Invesco, or any of its affiliates have or may have any conflict of interest, real or perceived, Invesco has engaged RiskMetrics to provide the proxy analyses, vote recommendations and voting of proxies.

In the event that (i) RiskMetrics recuses itself on a proxy voting matter and makes no recommendation or (ii) Invesco decides to override the RiskMetrics vote recommendation, the Proxy Committee will review the issue and direct RiskMetrics how to vote the proxies as described below.

PROXY VOTING FOR FIXED INCOME ASSETS AND STABLE VALUE WRAP AGREEMENTS

Some of Invesco's fixed income clients hold interests in preferred stock of companies and some of Invesco's stable value clients are parties to wrap agreements. From time to time, companies that have issued preferred stock or that are parties to wrap agreements request that Invesco's clients vote proxies on particular matters. RiskMetrics does not currently provide proxy analysis or vote recommendations with respect to such proxy votes. Therefore, when a particular matter arises in this category, the investment team responsible for the particular mandate will review the matter and make a recommendation to the Proxy Manager as to how to vote the associated proxy. The Proxy Manager will complete the proxy ballots and send the ballots to the persons or entities identified in the ballots.

PROXY COMMITTEE

The Proxy Committee shall have seven (7) members, which shall include representatives from portfolio management, operations, and legal/compliance or other functional departments as deemed appropriate and who are knowledgeable regarding the proxy process. A majority of the members of the Proxy Committee shall constitute a quorum and the Proxy Committee shall act by a majority vote of those members in attendance at a meeting called for the purpose of determining how to vote a particular proxy. The Proxy Committee shall keep minutes of its meetings that shall be kept with the proxy voting records of Invesco. The Proxy Committee will appoint a Proxy Manager to manage the proxy voting process, which includes the voting of proxies and the maintenance of appropriate records.

The Proxy Manager shall call for a meeting of the Proxy Committee (1) when override submissions are made; and (2) in instances when RiskMetrics has recused itself or has not provided a vote recommendation with respect to an equity security. At such meeting, the Proxy Committee shall determine how proxies are to be voted in accordance with the factors set forth in the section entitled "Best Economic Interests of Clients," above.

The Proxy Committee also is responsible for monitoring adherence to these procedures, evaluating industry trends in proxy voting and engaging in the annual review described in the section entitled "RiskMetrics' Services," above.

RECUSAL BY RISKMETRICS OR FAILURE OF RISKMETRICS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION

When RiskMetrics does not make a recommendation on a proxy voting issue or recuses itself due to a conflict of interest, the Proxy Committee will review the issue and determine whether Invesco has a material conflict of interest as determined pursuant to the policies and procedures outlined in the "Conflicts of Interest" section below. If Invesco determines it does not have a material conflict of interest, Invesco will direct RiskMetrics how to vote the proxies. If Invesco determines it does have a material conflict of interest, the Proxy Committee will follow the policies and procedures set forth in such section.

OVERRIDE OF RISKMETRICS' RECOMMENDATION

There may be occasions where Invesco investment personnel, senior officers or a member of the Proxy Committee seek to override a RiskMetrics recommendation if they believe that a RiskMetrics recommendation is not in accordance with the best economic interests of clients. In the event that an individual listed above in this section disagrees with a RiskMetrics recommendation on a particular voting issue, the individual shall document in writing the reasons that he/she believes that the RiskMetrics

recommendation is not in accordance with clients' best economic interests and submit such written documentation to the Proxy Manager for consideration by the Proxy Committee along with the certification attached as Appendix A hereto. Upon review of the documentation and consultation with the individual and others as the Proxy Committee deems appropriate, the Proxy Committee may make a determination to override the RiskMetrics voting recommendation if the Committee determines that it is in the best economic interests of clients and the Committee has addressed any conflict of interest.

PROXY COMMITTEE MEETINGS

When a Proxy Committee Meeting is called, whether because of a RiskMetrics recusal or request for override of a RiskMetrics recommendation, the Proxy Committee shall request from the Chief Compliance Officer as to whether any Invesco person has reported a conflict of interest.

The Proxy Committee shall review the report from the Chief Compliance Officer to determine whether a real or perceived conflict of interest exists, and the minutes of the Proxy Committee shall:

(1) describe any real or perceived conflict of interest,

(2) determine whether such real or perceived conflict of interest is material,

(3) discuss any procedure used to address such conflict of interest,

(4) report any contacts from outside parties (other than routine communications from proxy solicitors), and

(5) include confirmation that the recommendation as to how the proxies are to be voted is in the best economic interests of clients and was made without regard to any conflict of interest.

Based on the above review and determinations, the Proxy Committee will direct RiskMetrics how to vote the proxies as provided herein.

CERTAIN PROXY VOTES MAY NOT BE CAST

In some cases, Invesco may determine that it is not in the best economic interests of clients to vote proxies. For example, proxy voting in certain countries outside the United States requires share blocking. Shareholders who wish to vote their proxies must deposit their shares 7 to 21 days before the date of the meeting with a designated depositary. During the blocked period, shares to be voted at the meeting cannot be sold until the meeting has taken place and the shares have been returned to the Custodian/Sub-Custodian bank. In addition, voting certain international securities may involve unusual costs to clients, some of which may be related to requirements of having a representative in person attend the proxy meeting. In other cases, it may not be possible to vote certain proxies despite good faith efforts to do so, for instance when inadequate notice of the matter is provided. In the instance of loan securities, voting of proxies typically requires termination of the loan, so it is not usually in the best economic interests of clients to vote proxies on loaned securities. Invesco typically will not, but reserves the right to, vote where share blocking restrictions, unusual costs or other barriers to efficient voting apply. Invesco will not vote if it determines that the cost of voting exceeds the expected benefit to the client. The Proxy Manager shall record the reason for any proxy not being voted, which record shall be kept with the proxy voting records of Invesco.

PROXY VOTING RECORDS

The proxy voting statements and records will be maintained by the Proxy Manager on-site (or accessible via an electronic storage site of RiskMetrics) for the first two (2) years. Copies of the proxy voting statements and records will be maintained for an additional five (5) years by Invesco (or will be accessible via an electronic storage site of RiskMetrics). Clients may obtain information about how

Invesco voted proxies on their behalf by contacting their client services representative. Alternatively, clients may make a written request for proxy voting information to: Proxy Manager, 1555 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND IMPROPER INFLUENCE

In order to avoid voting proxies in circumstances where Invesco or any of its affiliates have or may have any conflict of interest, real or perceived, Invesco has contracted with RiskMetrics to provide proxy analyses, vote recommendations and voting of proxies. Unless noted otherwise by RiskMetrics, each vote recommendation provided by RiskMetrics to Invesco shall include a representation from RiskMetrics that RiskMetrics has no conflict of interest with respect to the vote. In instances where RiskMetrics has recused itself or makes no recommendation on a particular matter, or if an override submission is requested, the Proxy Committee shall determine how the proxy is to be voted and instruct the Proxy Manager accordingly, in which case the conflict of interest provisions discussed below shall apply.

In effecting the policy of voting proxies in the best economic interests of clients, there may be occasions where the voting of such proxies may present a real or perceived conflict of interest between Invesco, as the investment manager, and Invesco's clients. For each director, officer and employee of Invesco ("Invesco person"), the interests of Invesco's clients must come first, ahead of the interest of Invesco and any Invesco person, including Invesco's affiliates. Accordingly, no Invesco person may put "personal benefit," whether tangible or intangible, before the interests of clients of Invesco or otherwise take advantage of the relationship with Invesco's clients. "Personal benefit" includes any intended benefit for oneself or any other individual, company, group or organization of any kind whatsoever, except a benefit for a client of Invesco, as appropriate. It is imperative that each Invesco person avoid any situation that might compromise, or call into question, the exercise of fully independent judgment that is in the interests of Invesco's clients.

Occasions may arise where a person or organization involved in the proxy voting process may have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest may exist if Invesco has a business relationship with (or is actively soliciting business from) either the company soliciting the proxy or a third party that has a material interest in the outcome of a proxy vote or that is actively lobbying for a particular outcome of a proxy vote. Additional examples of situations where a conflict may exist include:

- Business Relationships - where Invesco manages money for a company or an employee group, manages pension assets or is actively soliciting any such business, or leases office space from a company;

- Personal Relationships - where an Invesco person has a personal relationship with other proponents of proxy proposals, participants in proxy contests, corporate directors, or candidates for directorships; and

- Familial Relationships - where an Invesco person has a known familial relationship relating to a company (e.g. a spouse or other relative who serves as a director of a public company or is employed by the company).

In the event that the Proxy Committee determines that Invesco (or an affiliate) has a material conflict of interest, the Proxy Committee will not take into consideration the relationship giving rise to the conflict of interest and shall, in its sole discretion, either (a) decide to vote the proxies pursuant to RiskMetrics' general proxy voting guidelines, (b) engage an independent third party to provide a vote recommendation, or (c) contact Invesco's client(s) for direction as to how to vote the proxies.

In the event an Invesco person has a conflict of interest and has knowledge of such conflict of interest, it is the responsibility of such Invesco person to disclose the conflict to the Chief Compliance Officer. When a Proxy Committee meeting is called, the Chief Compliance Officer will report to the Proxy Committee all real or potential conflicts of interest for the Proxy Committee to review and determine whether such conflict is material. If the Proxy Committee determines that such conflict is material and involves a person involved in the proxy voting process, the Proxy Committee may require such person to recuse himself or herself from participating in the discussions regarding the proxy vote item and from casting a vote regarding how Invesco should vote such proxy. An Invesco person will not be considered to have a material conflict of interest if the Invesco person did not know of the conflict of interest and did not attempt to influence the outcome of a proxy vote.

In order to ensure compliance with these procedures, the Proxy Manager and each member of the Proxy Committee shall certify annually as to their compliance with this policy. In addition, any Invesco person who submits a RiskMetrics override recommendation to the Proxy Committee shall certify as to their compliance with this policy concurrently with the submission of their override recommendation. A form of such certification is attached as Appendix A hereto.

In addition, members of the Proxy Committee must notify Invesco's Chief Compliance Officer, with impunity and without fear of retribution or retaliation, of any direct, indirect or perceived improper influence exerted by any Invesco person or by an affiliated company's representatives with regard to how Invesco should vote proxies. The Chief Compliance Officer will investigate the allegations and will report his or her findings to the Invesco Risk Management Committee. In the event that it is determined that improper influence was exerted, the Risk Management Committee will determine the appropriate action to take, which actions may include, but are not limited to, (1) notifying the affiliated company's Chief Executive Officer, its Management Committee or Board of Directors, (2) taking remedial action, if necessary, to correct the result of any improper influence where clients have been harmed, or (3) notifying the appropriate regulatory agencies of the improper influence and cooperating fully with these regulatory agencies as required. In all cases, the Proxy Committee shall not take into consideration the improper influence in determining how to vote proxies and will vote proxies solely in the best economic interests of clients.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

The Invesco Trimark Investment Operations department will endeavour to ensure that all proxies and notices are received from all issuers on a timely basis, and will maintain for all Funds:

- A record of all proxies received;

- a record of votes cast;

- a copy of the reasons for voting against management; and for the US Funds

- the documents mentioned above; and

- a copy of any document created by Invesco Trimark that was material to making a decision how to vote proxies on behalf of a U.S. Fund and that memorializes the basis of that decision.

Invesco Trimark has a dedicated person ( "Administrator") who manages all proxy voting materials. Proxy voting circulars for all companies are received electronically through an external service provider. Circulars for North American companies and ADRs are generally also received in paper format.

Once a circular is received, the Administrator verifies that all shares and Funds affected are correctly listed. The Administrator then gives a copy of the proxy ballot to each affected portfolio manager and maintains a tracking list to ensure that all proxies are voted within the prescribed deadlines.

Once voting information has been received from the portfolio managers, voting instructions are sent electronically to the service provider who then forwards the instructions to the appropriate proxy voting agent or transfer agent. The external service provider retains on behalf of Invesco Trimark a record of the votes cast and agrees to provide Invesco Trimark with a copy of proxy records promptly upon request. The service provider must make all documents available to Invesco Trimark for a period of 7 years.

In the event that Invesco Trimark ceases to use an external service provider, all documents would be maintained and preserved in an easily accessible place i) for a period of 2 years where Invesco Trimark carries on business in Canada and
ii) for a period of 5 years thereafter at the same location or at any other location.

REPORTING

The CIO will report on proxy voting to the Fund Boards on an annual basis with respect to all funds managed in Canada or distributed by Invesco Trimark and managed by a Sub-Advisor. The CIO will report on proxy voting to the Board of Directors of the US Funds as required from time to time.

In accordance with National Instrument 81-106 (NI 81-106), proxy voting records for all Canadian mutual funds for years ending June 30th are posted on Invesco Trimark's website no later than August 31st of each year.

The Invesco Trimark Compliance department will review the proxy voting records held by Invesco Trimark on an annual basis to confirm that proxy voting records are posted by the August 31st deadline under NI 81-106. A summary of the review will be retained onsite for 2 years and thereafter offsite for 5 years with a designated records maintenance firm.

INVESCO TRIMARK

PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to describe Invesco Trimark's general guidelines for voting proxies received from companies held in Invesco Trimark's Toronto-based funds. Proxy voting for the funds managed on behalf of Invesco Trimark on a sub-advised basis (i.e. by other Invesco business units or on a third party basis) are subject to the proxy voting policies & procedures of those other entities. As part of its regular due diligence, Invesco Trimark will review the proxy voting policies & procedures of any new sub-advisors to ensure that they are appropriate in the circumstances.

INTRODUCTION

Invesco Trimark has the fiduciary obligation to ensure that the long-term economic best interest of unitholders is the key consideration when voting proxies of portfolio companies.

The default is to vote with the recommendation of the publicly traded company's Board.

As a general rule, Invesco Trimark shall vote against any actions that would:

- reduce the rights or options of shareholders,

- reduce shareholder influence over the board of directors and management,

- reduce the alignment of interests between management and shareholders, or

- reduce the value of shareholders' investments.

At the same time, since Invesco Trimark's Toronto-based portfolio managers follow an investment discipline that includes investing in companies that are believed to have strong management teams, the portfolio managers will generally support the management of companies in which they invest, and will accord proper weight to the positions of a company's board of directors. Therefore, in most circumstances, votes will be cast in accordance with the recommendations of the company's board of directors.

While Invesco Trimark's proxy voting guidelines are stated below, the portfolio managers will take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances (including country specific considerations), and retain the right to vote proxies as deemed appropriate. These guidelines may be amended from time to time.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

When voting proxies, Invesco Trimark's portfolio managers assess whether there are material conflicts of interest between Invesco Trimark's interests and those of unitholders. A potential conflict of interest situation may include where Invesco Trimark or an affiliate manages assets for, provides other financial services to, or otherwise has a material business relationship with, a company whose management is soliciting proxies, and failure to vote in favour of management of the company may harm Invesco Trimark's relationship with the company. In all situations, the portfolio managers will not take Invesco Trimark's relationship with the company into account, and will vote the proxies in the best interest of the unitholders. To the extent that a portfolio manager has any personal conflict of interest with respect to a company or an issue presented, that portfolio manager should abstain from voting on that company or issue. Portfolio managers are required to report to the CIO any such conflicts of interest and/or attempts by outside parties to improperly influence the voting process. The CIO will report any conflicts of interest to the Trading Committee and the Independent Review Committee on an annual basis.

I BOARDS OF DIRECTORS

We believe that a board that has at least a majority of independent directors is integral to good corporate governance. Unless there are restrictions specific to a company's home jurisdiction, key board committees, including audit and compensation committees, should be completely independent.

VOTING ON DIRECTOR NOMINEES IN UNCONTESTED ELECTIONS

Votes in an uncontested election of directors are evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, considering factors that may include:

- Long-term company performance relative to a market index,

- Composition of the board and key board committees,

- Nominee's attendance at board meetings,

- Nominee's time commitments as a result of serving on other company boards,

- Nominee's investments in the company,

- Whether the chairman is also serving as CEO, and

- Whether a retired CEO sits on the board.

VOTING ON DIRECTOR NOMINEES IN CONTESTED ELECTIONS

Votes in a contested election of directors are evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, considering factors that may include:

- Long-term financial performance of the target company relative to its industry,

- Management's track record,

- Background to the proxy contest,

- Qualifications of director nominees (both slates),

- Evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met, and

- Stock ownership positions.

MAJORITY THRESHOLD VOTING FOR DIRECTOR ELECTIONS

We will generally vote for proposals that require directors to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast unless the relevant portfolio manager believes that the company has adopted formal corporate governance principles that present a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard and provide an adequate and timely response to both new nominees as well as incumbent nominees who fail to receive a majority of votes cast.

REIMBURSEMENT OF PROXY SOLICITATION EXPENSES

Decisions to provide reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest are made on a CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

SEPARATING CHAIRMAN AND CEO

Shareholder proposals to separate the chairman and CEO positions should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

While we generally support these proposals, some companies have governance structures in place that can satisfactorily counterbalance a combined position. Voting decisions will take into account factors such as:

- Designated lead director, appointed from the ranks of the independent board members with clearly delineated duties;

- Majority of independent directors;

- All-independent key committees;

- Committee chairpersons nominated by the independent directors;

- CEO performance is reviewed annually by a committee of outside directors; and

- Established governance guidelines.

MAJORITY OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS

While we generally support shareholder proposals asking that a majority of directors be independent, each proposal should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

We generally vote for shareholder proposals that request that the board's audit, compensation, and/or nominating committees be composed exclusively of independent directors.

STOCK OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS

We believe that individual directors should be appropriately compensated and motivated to act in the best interests of shareholders. Share ownership by directors better aligns their interests with those of other shareholders. Therefore, we believe that meaningful share ownership by directors is in the best interest of the company.

We generally vote for proposals that require a certain percentage of a director's compensation to be in the form of common stock.

SIZE OF BOARDS OF DIRECTORS

We believe that the number of directors is important to ensuring the board's effectiveness in maximizing long-term shareholder value. The board must be large enough to allow it to adequately discharge its responsibilities, without being so large that it becomes cumbersome.

While we will prefer a board of no fewer than 5 and no more than16 members, each situation will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis taking into consideration the specific company circumstances.

CLASSIFIED OR STAGGERED BOARDS

In a classified or staggered board, directors are typically elected in two or more "classes", serving terms greater than one year.

We prefer the annual election of all directors and will generally NOT SUPPORT proposals that provide for staggered terms for board members. We recognize that there may be jurisdictions where staggered terms for board members is common practice and, in such situations, we will review the proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

DIRECTOR INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY PROTECTION

We recognize that many individuals may be reluctant to serve as corporate directors if they were to be personally liable for all lawsuits and legal costs. As a result, limitations on directors' liability can benefit the corporation and its shareholders by helping to attract and retain qualified directors while providing recourse to shareholders on areas of misconduct by directors.

We generally vote for proposals that limit directors' liability and provide indemnification as long as the arrangements are limited to the director acting honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation and, in criminal matters, are limited to the director having reasonable grounds for believing the conduct was lawful.

II AUDITORS

A strong audit process is a requirement for good corporate governance. A significant aspect of the audit process is a strong relationship with a knowledgeable and independent set of auditors.

RATIFICATION OF AUDITORS

We believe a company should limit its relationship with its auditors to the audit engagement, and certain closely related activities that do not, in the aggregate, raise an appearance of impaired independence.

We generally vote for the reappointment of the company's auditors unless:

- It is not clear that the auditors will be able to fulfill their function;

- There is reason to believe the auditors have rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company's financial position; or

- The auditors have a significant professional or personal relationship with the issuer that compromises their independence.

DISCLOSURE OF AUDIT VS. NON-AUDIT FEES

Understanding the fees earned by the auditors is important for assessing auditor independence. Our support for the re-appointment of the auditors will take into consideration whether the management information circular contains adequate disclosure about the amount and nature of audit vs. non-audit fees.

There may be certain jurisdictions that do not currently require disclosure of audit vs. non-audit fees. In these circumstances, we will generally support proposals that call for this disclosure.

III COMPENSATION PROGRAMS

Appropriately designed equity-based compensation plans, approved by shareholders, can be an effective way to align the interests of long-term shareholders and the interests of management, employees and directors. Plans should not substantially dilute shareholders' ownership interests in the company, provide participants with excessive awards or have objectionable structural features. We will consider each compensation plan in its entirety (including all incentives, awards and other compensation) to determine if the plan provides the right incentives to managers and directors and is reasonable on the whole.

While we generally encourage companies to provide more transparent disclosure related to their compensation programs, the following are specific guidelines dealing with some of the more common features of these programs (features not specifically itemized below will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis taking into consideration the general principles described above):

CASH COMPENSATION AND SEVERANCE PACKAGES

We will generally SUPPORT the board's discretion to determine and grant appropriate cash compensation and severance packages.

EQUITY BASED PLANS - DILUTION

We will generally vote AGAINST equity-based plans where the total dilution (including all equity-based plans) is excessive. The CIO will require a written explanation any time a portfolio manager votes against an equity-based plans.

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLANS

We will generally vote FOR the use of employee stock purchase plans to increase company stock ownership by employees, provided that shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value. It is recognized that country specific circumstances may exist (e.g. tax issues) that require proposals to be reviewed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

LOANS TO EMPLOYEES

We will vote against the corporation making loans to employees to allow employees to pay for stock or stock options. It is recognized that country specific circumstances may exist that require proposals to be reviewed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

STOCK OPTION PLANS - BOARD DISCRETION

We will vote AGAINST stock option plans that give the board broad discretion in setting the terms and conditions of the programs. Such programs should be submitted with detail and be reasonable in the circumstances regarding their cost, scope, frequency and schedule for exercising the options.

STOCK OPTION PLANS - INAPPROPRIATE FEATURES

We will generally vote against plans that have any of the following structural features:

- ability to re-price "underwater" options without shareholder approval,

- ability to issue options with an exercise price below the stock's current market price,

- ability to issue "reload" options, or

- automatic share replenishment ("evergreen") features.

STOCK OPTION PLANS - DIRECTOR ELIGIBILITY

While we prefer stock ownership by directors, we will SUPPORT stock option plans for directors as long as the terms and conditions of director options are clearly defined

STOCK OPTION PLANS - REPRICING

We will vote FOR proposals to re-price options if there is a value-for-value (rather than a share-for-share) exchange.

STOCK OPTION PLANS - VESTING

We will vote AGAINST stock option plans that are 100% vested when granted.

STOCK OPTION PLANS - AUTHORIZED ALLOCATIONS

We will generally vote AGAINST stock option plans that authorize allocation of 25% or more of the available options to any one individual.

STOCK OPTION PLANS - CHANGE IN CONTROL PROVISIONS

We will vote AGAINST stock option plans with change in control provisions that allow option holders to receive more for their options than shareholders would receive for their shares.

IV CORPORATE MATTERS

We will review management proposals relating to changes to capital structure, reincorporation, restructuring and mergers & acquisitions on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the impact of the changes on corporate governance and shareholder rights, anticipated financial and operating benefits, portfolio manager views, level of dilution, and a company's industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.

COMMON STOCK AUTHORIZATION

We will review proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issue on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

DUAL CLASS SHARE STRUCTURES

Dual class share structures involve a second class of common stock with either superior or inferior voting rights to those of another class of stock.

We will generally vote AGAINST proposals to create or extend dual class share structures where certain stockholders have superior or inferior voting rights to another class of stock.

STOCK SPLITS

We will vote FOR proposals to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the increase in authorized shares would not result in excessive dilution given a company's industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.

REVERSE STOCK SPLITS

We will vote FOR management proposals to implement a reverse stock split, provided that the reverse split does not result in an increase of authorized but unissued shares of more than 100% after giving effect to the shares needed for the reverse split.

SHARE REPURCHASE PROGRAMS

We will vote AGAINST proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans if all shareholders do not participate on an equal basis.

REINCORPORATION

Reincorporation involves re-establishing the company in a different legal jurisdiction.

We will generally vote FOR proposals to reincorporate the company provided that the board and management have demonstrated sound financial or business reasons for the move. Proposals to reincorporate will NOT BE SUPPORTED if solely as part of an anti-takeover defense or as a way to limit directors' liability.

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

We will vote FOR merger & acquisition proposals that the relevant portfolio managers believe, based on their review of the materials:

- will result in financial and operating benefits,

- have a fair offer price,

- have favourable prospects for the combined companies, and

- will not have a negative impact on corporate governance or shareholder rights.

V SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

We recognize that to effectively manage a corporation, directors and management must consider not only the interests of shareholders, but the interests of employees, customers, suppliers, and creditors, among others.

We believe that companies and their boards must give careful consideration to social responsibility issues in order to enhance long-term shareholder value.

We SUPPORT efforts by companies to develop policies and practices that consider social responsibility issues related to their businesses.

VI SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS

Shareholder proposals can be extremely complex, and the impact on the interests of all stakeholders can rarely be anticipated with a high degree of confidence. As a result, shareholder proposals will be reviewed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis with consideration of factors such as:

- the proposal's impact on the company's short-term and long-term share value,

- its effect on the company's reputation,

- the economic effect of the proposal,

- industry and regional norms applicable to the company,

- the company's overall corporate governance provisions, and

- the reasonableness of the request.

We will generally SUPPORT shareholder proposals that require additional disclosure regarding corporate responsibility issues where the relevant portfolio manager believes:

- the company has failed to adequately address these issues with shareholders,

- there is information to suggest that a company follows procedures that are not in compliance with applicable regulations, or

- the company fails to provide a level of disclosure that is comparable to industry peers or generally accepted standards.

We will generally NOT SUPPORT shareholder proposals that place arbitrary or artificial constraints on the board, management or the company.

ORDINARY BUSINESS PRACTICES

We will generally SUPPORT the board's discretion regarding shareholder proposals that involve ordinary business practices.

PROTECTION OF SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS

We will generally vote FOR shareholder proposals that are designed to protect shareholder rights if the company's corporate governance standards indicate that such additional protections are warranted.

BARRIERS TO SHAREHOLDER ACTION

We will generally vote FOR proposals to lower barriers to shareholder action.

SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS PLANS

We will generally vote FOR proposals to subject shareholder rights plans to a shareholder vote.

VII OTHER

We will vote AGAINST any proposal where the proxy materials lack sufficient information upon which to base an informed decision.

We will vote AGAINST any proposals to authorize the company to conduct any other business that is not described in the proxy statement (including the authority to approve any further amendments to an otherwise approved resolution).

RBC Wealth Management
Raymond James
Ridge Clearing
Robert W. Baird & Co.
Ross Sinclair & Associates LLC
Royal Alliance Associates
Riversource (Ameriprise)
RSBCO
S I I Investments, Inc.
Salomon Smith Barney
Sanders Morris Harris
SCF Securities, Inc.
Scott & Stringfellow, Inc.
Securities America, Inc.
Security Distributors, Inc.
Sentra Securities
Silverton Capital, Corp.
Simmons First Investment Group, Inc.
Smith Barney Inc.
Smith Hayes Financial Services
Southwest Securities
Sovereign Bank
Spelman & Company
State Farm
State Street Bank & Trust Company
Stifel Nicolaus & Company
SunAmerica Securities, Inc.
SunGard
Sun Life SunTrust
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey
SWS Financial Services, Inc.
Symetra Investment Services Inc.
TD Ameritrade
The (Wilson) William Financial Group
TFS Securities, Inc.
Transamerica Capital Inc.
Transamerica Treasury Curve, LLC
Treasury Strategies
T Rowe Price
Trust Management Network, LLC
U.S. Bancorp
UBS Financial Services Inc.
UMB Financial Services, Inc.
Union Bank
Union Bank of California, N.A.
Union Central
United Planners Financial
US Bank
U.S. Bank, N.A.
UVEST
Vanguard Marketing Corp.
V S R Financial Services, Inc.
VALIC Financial Advisors, Inc.
vFinance Investments, Inc.
Vining Sparks IBG, LP
Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC
Wachovia
Wadsworth Investment Co., Inc.
Waterstone Financial Group, Inc.
Wells Fargo
Woodbury Financial Services, Inc.
Zions Bank

MANAGEMENT, PUTNAM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, MARSICO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, BANC OF AMERICA ADVISORS, LLC, BANC OF AMERICA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND NATIONS FUNDS TRUST, in the Superior
Court Division,

State of North Carolina (Civil Action No. 03-CVS-19622), filed on November 14, 2003. This claim alleges common law breach of fiduciary duty; abuse of control; gross mismanagement; waste of fund assets; and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff in this case is seeking: injunctive relief, including imposition of a constructive trust; damages; restitution and disgorgement; and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

L. SCOTT KARLIN, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC. V. AMVESCAP, PLC, INVESCO, INC., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., in the
United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-MK-2406), filed on November 28, 2003. This claim alleges violations of
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("Investment Company Act"), and common law breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff in this case is seeking damages and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

RICHARD RAVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., INVESCO STOCK FUNDS, INC, AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM STOCK FUNDS, INC., AMVESCAP PLC, INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, INVESCO GOLD & PRECIOUS METALS FUND, INVESCO HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO LEISURE FUND, INVESCO MID-CAP GROWTH FUND, INVESCO MULTI-SECTOR FUND, INVESCO S&P 500 INDEX FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, INVESCO TOTAL RETURN FUND, INVESCO UTILITIES FUND, INVESCO ADVANTAGE FUND, INVESCO BALANCED FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO GROWTH FUND, INVESCO HIGH YIELD FUND, INVESCO GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL BLUE CHIP VALUE FUND, INVESCO REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY FUND, INVESCO SELECT FUND, INVESCO TAX-FREE BOND FUND, INVESCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND, INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND, INVESCO VALUE FUND, EDWARD J. STERN, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LLC, AND DOES 1-100, in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-F-2441), filed on December 2, 2003. This claim alleges violations of: Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"); Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"); Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act; and Sections 34(b), 36(a) and 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The claim also alleges common law breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; counsel fees and expert fees; and other relief.

JERRY FATTAH, CUSTODIAN FOR BASIM FATTAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, INVESCO GOLD & PRECIOUS METALS FUND, INVESCO HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL CORE EQUITY FUND (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL BLUE CHIP VALUE FUND), INVESCO LEISURE FUND, INVESCO MID-CAP GROWTH FUND, INVESCO MULTI-SECTOR FUND, AIM INVESCO S&P 500 INDEX FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, INVESCO TOTAL RETURN FUND, INVESCO UTILITIES FUND, AIM MONEY MARKET FUND, AIM INVESCO TAX-FREE MONEY FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURER'S MONEY MARKET RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURER'S TAX-EXEMPT RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT MONEY FUND, INVESCO ADVANTAGE

FUND, INVESCO BALANCED FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO GROWTH FUND, INVESCO HIGH YIELD FUND, INVESCO GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INVESCO REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY FUND, INVESCO SELECT INCOME FUND, INVESCO TAX-FREE BOND FUND, INVESCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND, INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND, INVESCO VALUE FUND, INVESCO, INVESCO LATIN AMERICAN GROWTH FUND (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS"), AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM COUNSELOR SERIES TRUST, AIM SECTOR FUNDS INC., AIM BOND FUNDS INC., AIM COMBINATION STOCK AND BOND FUNDS INC., AIM MONEY MARKET FUNDS INC., AIM INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INC. (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS REGISTRANTS"), AMVESCAP PLC, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP INC., TIMOTHY MILLER, RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM, THOMAS KOLBE, EDWARD STERN, AMERICAN SKANDIA INC., BREAN MURRAY & CO., INC., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., AND JOHN DOES 1-100, in the United States
District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-F-2456), filed on December 4, 2003. This claim alleges violations of: Sections 11 and 15 of Securities Act; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Advisers Act"). The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: compensatory damages; rescission; return of fees paid; accounting for wrongfully gotten gains, profits and compensation; restitution and disgorgement; and other costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

EDWARD LOWINGER AND SHARON LOWINGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, INVESCO GOLD & PRECIOUS METALS FUND, INVESCO HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL CORE EQUITY FUND (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL BLUE CHIP VALUE FUND), INVESCO LEISURE FUND, INVESCO MID-CAP GROWTH FUND, INVESCO MULTI-SECTOR FUND, AIM INVESCO S&P 500 INDEX FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, INVESCO TOTAL RETURN FUND, INVESCO UTILITIES FUND, AIM MONEY MARKET FUND, AIM INVESCO TAX-FREE MONEY FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURER'S MONEY MARKET RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURER'S TAX-EXEMPT RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT MONEY FUND, INVESCO ADVANTAGE FUND, INVESCO BALANCED FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO GROWTH FUND, INVESCO HIGH-YIELD FUND, INVESCO GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INVESCO REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY FUND, INVESCO SELECT INCOME FUND, INVESCO TAX-FREE BOND FUND, INVESCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND, INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND, INVESCO VALUE FUND, INVESCO; INVESCO LATIN AMERICAN GROWTH FUND (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS"), AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM COUNSELOR SERIES TRUST, AIM SECTOR FUNDS INC., AIM BOND FUNDS INC., AIM COMBINATION STOCK AND BOND FUNDS INC., AIM MONEY MARKET FUNDS INC., AIM INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INC. (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS REGISTRANTS"), AMVESCAP PLC, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., TIMOTHY MILLER, RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM, THOMAS KOLBE, EDWARD J. STERN, AMERICAN SKANDIA INC., BREAN MURRAY & CO., INC., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., AND
JOHN DOES 1-100, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 03-CV-9634), filed on December 4, 2003. This claim alleges violations of: Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act; and Section 206 of the Advisers Act. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: compensatory damages; rescission; return of fees

paid; accounting for wrongfully gotten gains, profits and compensation; restitution and disgorgement; and other costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

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. This claim alleges common law breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: injunctive relief; accounting for all damages and for all profits and any special benefits obtained; disgorgement; restitution and damages; costs and disbursements, including counsel fees and expert fees; and equitable relief.

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, INVESCO CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, INVESCO GOLD & PRECIOUS METALS FUND, INVESCO HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL CORE EQUITY FUND (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL BLUE CHIP VALUE FUND), INVESCO LEISURE FUND, INVESCO MID-CAP GROWTH FUND, INVESCO MULTI-SECTOR FUND, AIM INVESCO S&P 500 INDEX FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, INVESCO TOTAL RETURN FUND, INVESCO UTILITIES FUND, AIM MONEY MARKET FUND, AIM INVESCO TAX-FREE MONEY FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURERS MONEY MARKET RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURERS TAX-EXEMPT RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO US GOVERNMENT MONEY FUND, INVESCO ADVANTAGE FUND, INVESCO BALANCED FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO GROWTH FUND, INVESCO HIGH-YIELD FUND, INVESCO GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INVESCO REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY FUND, INVESCO SELECT INCOME FUND, INVESCO TAX-FREE BOND FUND, INVESCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND, INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND, INVESCO VALUE FUND, INVESCO LATIN AMERICAN GROWTH FUND (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS"), AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM COUNSELOR SERIES TRUST, AIM SECTOR FUNDS INC., AIM BOND FUNDS INC., AIM COMBINATION STOCK AND BOND FUNDS INC., AIM MONEY MARKET FUNDS INC., AIM INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INC. (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS REGISTRANTS"), AMVESCAP PLC, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., TIMOTHY MILLER, RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM, THOMAS KOLBE, EDWARD J. STERN, AMERICAN SKANDIA INC., BREAN MURRAY & CO., INC., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., AND JOHN DOES 1-100, in the
United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-N-2559), filed on December 17, 2003. This claim alleges violations of:
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act; and Section 206 of the Advisers Act. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: compensatory damages; rescission; return of fees paid; accounting for wrongfully gotten gains, profits and compensation; restitution and disgorgement; and other costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

JOSEPH R. RUSSO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, INVESCO GOLD & PRECIOUS METALS FUND, INVESCO HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL CORE EQUITY FUND (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL BLUE CHIP VALUE FUND), INVESCO LEISURE FUND, INVESCO MID-CAP GROWTH FUND, INVESCO MULTI-SECTOR FUND, AIM INVESCO S&P 500 INDEX FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY

GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, INVESCO TOTAL RETURN FUND, INVESCO UTILITIES FUND, AIM MONEY MARKET FUND, AIM INVESCO TAX-FREE MONEY FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURERS MONEY MARKET RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURERS TAX-EXEMPT RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO US GOVERNMENT MONEY FUND, INVESCO ADVANTAGE FUND, INVESCO BALANCED FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO GROWTH FUND, INVESCO HIGH-YIELD FUND, INVESCO GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INVESCO REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY FUND, INVESCO SELECT INCOME FUND, INVESCO TAX-FREE BOND FUND, INVESCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND, INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND, INVESCO VALUE FUND, INVESCO LATIN AMERICAN GROWTH FUND (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS"), AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM COUNSELOR SERIES TRUST, AIM SECTOR FUNDS INC., AIM BOND FUNDS INC., AIM COMBINATION STOCK AND BOND FUNDS INC., AIM MONEY MARKET FUNDS INC., AIM INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INC. (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS REGISTRANTS"), AMVESCAP PLC, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., TIMOTHY MILLER, RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM, THOMAS KOLBE, EDWARD J. STERN, AMERICAN SKANDIA INC., BREAN MURRAY & CO., INC., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., AND JOHN DOES 1-100, in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 03-CV-10045), filed on December 18, 2003. This claim alleges violations of: Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act; and Section 206 of the Advisers Act. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: compensatory damages; rescission; return of fees paid; accounting for wrongfully gotten gains, profits and compensation; restitution and disgorgement; and other costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

MIRIAM CALDERON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. AMVESCAP PLC, AVZ, INC., AMVESCAP RETIREMENT, INC., AMVESCAP NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ROBERT F. MCCULLOUGH, GORDON NEBEKER, JEFFREY G. CALLAHAN, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., RAYMOND R. CUNNINGHAM, AND DOES 1-100,
in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 03-M-2604), filed on December 24, 2003. This claim alleges violations of Sections 404, 405 and 406B of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: declarations that the defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties and that they are not entitled to the protection of Section 404(c)(1)(B) of ERISA; an order compelling the defendants to make good all losses to a particular retirement plan described in this case (the "Retirement Plan") resulting from the defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, including losses to the Retirement Plan resulting from imprudent investment of the Retirement Plan's assets, and to restore to the Retirement Plan all profits the defendants made through use of the Retirement Plan's assets, and to restore to the Retirement Plan all profits which the participants would have made if the defendants had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations; damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan; imposition of a constructive trust, injunctive relief, damages suffered by the Retirement Plan, to be allocated proportionately to the participants in the Retirement Plan; restitution and other costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

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. This claim alleges violations of Sections 15(a), 20(a) and 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: rescission and/or voiding of the investment advisory agreements; return of fees paid; damages; and other costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

LORI WEINRIB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM COUNSELOR SERIES TRUST, AIM SECTOR FUNDS INC., AIM BOND FUNDS INC., AIM COMBINATION STOCK AND BOND FUNDS INC., AIM MONEY MARKET FUNDS INC., AIM INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INC., AMVESCAP PLC, TIMOTHY MILLER, RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM, THOMAS KOLBE, EDWARD J. STERN, AMERICAN SKANDIA INC., BREAN MURRAY & CO., INC., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LTD., AND JOHN DOES 1-100, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-CV-00492), filed on January 21, 2004. This claim alleges violations of: Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act; and Section 206 of the Advisers Act. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: compensatory damages; rescission; return of fees paid; accounting for wrongfully gotten gains, profits and compensation; restitution and disgorgement; and other costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

ROBERT S. BALLAGH, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., INVESCO STOCK FUNDS, INC., AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM STOCK FUNDS, INC., AMVESCAP PLC, INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, INVESCO GOLD & PRECIOUS METALS FUND, INVESCO HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO LEISURE FUND, INVESCO MID-CAP GROWTH FUND, INVESCO MULTI-SECTOR FUND, INVESCO S&P 500 INDEX FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, INVESCO TOTAL RETURN FUND, INVESCO UTILITIES FUND, INVESCO ADVANTAGE FUND, INVESCO BALANCED FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO GROWTH FUND, INVESCO HIGH YIELD FUND, INVESCO GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL BLUE CHIP VALUE FUND, INVESCO REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY FUND, INVESCO SELECT FUND, INVESCO TAX-FREE BOND FUND, INVESCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND, INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND, INVESCO VALUE FUND, EDWARD J. STERN, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., CANARY CAPITAL
PARTNERS, LLC, AND DOES 1-100, in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0152), filed on January 28, 2004. This claim alleges violations of: Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act; and Sections 34(b), 36(a) and 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The claim also alleges common law breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; counsel fees and expert fees; and other relief.

JONATHAN GALLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., INVESCO STOCK FUNDS, INC., AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM STOCK FUNDS, INC., AMVESCAP PLC, INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, INVESCO GOLD & PRECIOUS METALS FUND, INVESCO HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO LEISURE FUND, INVESCO MID-CAP GROWTH FUND, INVESCO MULTI-SECTOR FUND, INVESCO S&P 500 INDEX FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, INVESCO TOTAL RETURN FUND, INVESCO UTILITIES FUND, INVESCO ADVANTAGE FUND, INVESCO BALANCED FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO GROWTH FUND, INVESCO HIGH YIELD FUND, INVESCO GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL BLUE CHIP VALUE FUND, INVESCO REAL ESTATE

OPPORTUNITY FUND, INVESCO SELECT FUND, INVESCO TAX-FREE BOND FUND, INVESCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND, INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND, INVESCO VALUE FUND, EDWARD J. STERN, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, AND DOES 1-100, in
the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0151), filed on January 28, 2004. This claim alleges violations of:
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act; and Sections 34(b), 36(a) and 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The claim also alleges common law breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; counsel fees and expert fees; and other relief.

EILEEN CLANCY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO ADVANTAGE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO CORE EQUITY FUND, INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, INVESCO GOLD & PRECIOUS METALS FUND, INVESCO HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INVESCO INTERNATIONAL CORE EQUITY FUND (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL BLUE CHIP VALUE FUND), INVESCO LEISURE FUND, INVESCO MID-CAP GROWTH FUND, INVESCO MULTI-SECTOR FUND, AIM INVESCO S&P 500 INDEX FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, INVESCO TOTAL RETURN FUND, INVESCO UTILITIES FUND, AIM MONEY MARKET FUND, AIM INVESCO TAX-FREE MONEY FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURER'S MONEY MARKET RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO TREASURER'S TAX-EXEMPT RESERVE FUND, AIM INVESCO US GOVERNMENT MONEY FUND, INVESCO ADVANTAGE FUND, INVESCO BALANCED FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO GROWTH FUND, INVESCO HIGH-YIELD FUND, INVESCO GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INVESCO REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY FUND, INVESCO SELECT INCOME FUND, INVESCO TAX-FREE BOND FUND, INVESCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND, INVESCO U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND, INVESCO VALUE FUND, INVESCO, INVESCO LATIN AMERICAN GROWTH FUND (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS"), AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM COUNSELOR SERIES TRUST, AIM SECTOR FUNDS INC., AIM BOND FUNDS INC., AIM COMBINATION STOCK AND BOND FUNDS INC., AIM MONEY MARKET FUNDS INC., AIM INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INC. (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "INVESCO FUNDS REGISTRANTS"), AMVESCAP PLC, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., TIMOTHY
MILLER, RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM AND THOMAS KOLBE, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-CV-0713), filed on January 30, 2004. This claim alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: compensatory damages, rescission; return of fees paid; and other costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

SCOTT WALDMAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND, INVESCO EUROPEAN FUND, INVESCO SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND, INVESCO TECHNOLOGY FUND, AIM STOCK FUNDS, AIM COUNSELOR SERIES TRUST, AIM SECTOR FUNDS INC., AIM BOND FUNDS INC., AIM COMBINATION STOCK AND BOND FUNDS INC., AIM MONEY MARKET FUNDS INC., AIM INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INC., AMVESCAP PLC, AND RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM,
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-CV-00915), filed on February 3, 2004. This claim alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and common law breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking compensatory damages; injunctive relief; and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

CARL E. VONDER HAAR AND MARILYN P. MARTIN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., INVESCO STOCK
FUNDS, INC. AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-CV-812), filed on February 5, 2004. This claim alleges: common law breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract; and tortious interference with contract. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking: injunctive relief; damages; disgorgement; and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

HENRY KRAMER, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO STOCK FUNDS, INC., AND INVESCO MUTUAL FUNDS V. AMVESCAP, PLC, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., DEFENDANTS, AND INVESCO ENERGY FUND, INVESCO STOCK FUNDS, INC., AND INVESCO MUTUAL FUNDS, NOMINAL
DEFENDANTS, in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 04-MK-0397), filed on March 4, 2004. This claim alleges violations of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act and common law breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff in this case is seeking damages and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

CYNTHIA L. ESSENMACHER, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF THE INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND AND THE REMAINING "INVESCO FUNDS" V. INVESCO FUNDS GROUPS, INC., AMVESCAP PLC, AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., RAYMOND CUNNINGHAM, TIMOTHY MILLER, THOMAS KOLBE AND MICHAEL LEGOSKI, DEFENDANTS, AND INVESCO DYNAMICS FUND AND THE
"INVESCO FUNDS", NOMINAL DEFENDANTS, in the United States District Court, District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 04-CV-188), filed on March 29, 2004. This claim alleges: violations of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act; violations of Section 206 of the Advisers Act; common law breach of fiduciary duty; and civil conspiracy. The plaintiff in this case is seeking: damages; injunctive relief; and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

ANNE G. PERENTESIS (WIDOW) V. AIM INVESTMENTS, ET AL (INVESCO FUNDS GROUP,
INC.), in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore County (Case No. 080400228152005), filed on July 21, 2005. This claim alleges financial losses, mental anguish and emotional distress as a result of unlawful market timing and related activity by the defendants. The plaintiff in this case is seeking damages and costs and expenses.

Pursuant to an Order of the MDL Court, plaintiffs in the above lawsuits (with the exception of Carl E. Vonder Haar, et al. v. INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. et al. and Mike Sayegh v. Janus Capital Corporation, et al.) consolidated their claims for pre-trial purposes into three amended complaints against various Invesco Aim- and IFG-related parties: (i) a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint purportedly brought on behalf of shareholders of the AIM Funds (the Lepera lawsuit discussed below); (ii) a Consolidated Amended Fund Derivative Complaint purportedly brought on behalf of the AIM Funds and fund registrants (the Essenmacher lawsuit discussed below); and (iii) an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA") purportedly brought on behalf of participants in Invesco's 401(k) plan (the Calderon lawsuit discussed below). The plaintiffs in the Vonder Haar and Sayegh lawsuits continue to seek remand of their lawsuits to state court. Set forth below is detailed information about these three amended complaints.

RICHARD LEPERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED (LEAD PLAINTIFF: CITY OF CHICAGO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN), V. INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., AMVESCAP, PLC, AIM INVESTMENTS, AIM ADVISORS, INC., INVESCO INSTITUTIONAL (N.A.), INC., INVESCO ASSETS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, INVESCO GLOBAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT (N.A.), AIM

STOCK FUNDS, AIM MUTUAL FUNDS, AIM COMBINATION STOCK & BOND FUNDS, AIM SECTOR FUNDS, AIM TREASURER'S SERIES TRUST, INVESCO DISTRIBUTORS, INC., AIM DISTRIBUTORS, INC., RAYMOND R. CUNNINGHAM, TIMOTHY J. MILLER, THOMAS A. KOLBE, MICHAEL D. LEGOSKI, MICHAEL K. BRUGMAN, MARK WILLIAMSON, EDWARD J. STERN, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., RYAN GOLDBERG, MICHAEL GRADY, CITIGROUP, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS HOLDINGS, INC., SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC., MORGAN STANLEY DW, ANNA BRUGMAN, ANB CONSULTING, LLC, KAPLAN & CO. SECURITIES INC., SECURITY TRUST COMPANY, N.A., GRANT D. SEEGER, JB OXFORD HOLDINGS, INC., NATIONAL CLEARING CORPORATION, JAMES G. LEWIS, KRAIG L. KIBBLE, JAMES Y. LIN, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC, THEODORE C. SIHPOL, III, BEAR STEARNS & CO., INC., BEAR STEARNS SECURITIES CORP., CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON (USA) INC., PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES, INC., CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, JP MORGAN CHASE AND CO., AND JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-100, in the MDL Court (Case No. 04-MD-15864; No. 04-CV-00814-JFM) (originally in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado), filed on September 29, 2004. This lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2), and 15 of the Securities Act; Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Sections 34(b), 36(a), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act; breach of fiduciary duty/constructive fraud; aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are seeking: compensatory damages, including interest; and other costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees.

CYNTHIA ESSENMACHER, SILVANA G. DELLA CAMERA, FELICIA BERNSTEIN AS CUSTODIAN FOR DANIELLE BROOKE BERNSTEIN, EDWARD CASEY, TINA CASEY, SIMON DENENBERG, GEORGE L. GORSUCH, PAT B. GORSUCH, L. SCOTT KARLIN, HENRY KRAMER, JOHN E. MORRISEY, HARRY SCHIPPER, BERTY KREISLER, GERSON SMITH, CYNTHIA PULEO, ZACHARY ALAN STARR, JOSHUA GUTTMAN, AND AMY SUGIN, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS, TRUSTS AND CORPORATIONS COMPRISING THE INVESCO AND AIM FAMILY OF MUTUAL FUNDS V. AMVESCAP, PLC, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., INVESCO DISTRIBUTORS, INC., INVESCO INSTITUTIONAL (N.A.), INC., INVESCO ASSETS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, INVESCO GLOBAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT (N.A.), AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., AIM ADVISERS, INC., AIM INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., AIM DISTRIBUTORS, INC., FUND

MANAGEMENT COMPANY, MARK H. WILLIAMSON, RAYMOND R. CUNNINGHAM, TIMOTHY MILLER, THOMAS KOLBE, MICHAEL LEGOSKI, MICHAEL BRUGMAN, FRED A. DEERING, VICTOR L. ANDREWS, BOB R. BAKER, LAWRENCE H. BUDNER, JAMES T. BUNCH, GERALD J. LEWIS, JOHN W. MCINTYRE, LARRY SOLL, RONALD L. GROOMS, WILLIAM J. GALVIN, JR., ROBERT H. GRAHAM, FRANK S. BAYLEY, BRUCE L. CROCKETT, ALBERT R. DOWDEN, EDWARD K. DUNN, JACK M. FIELDS, CARL FRISCHILING, PREMA MATHAI-DAVIS, LEWIS F. PENNOCK, RUTH H. QUIGLEY, LOUIS S. SKLAR, OWEN DALY II, AURUM SECURITIES CORP., AURUM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP., GOLDEN GATE FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORP., BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BEAR STEARNS & CO., INC., CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, CANARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., CANARY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, EDWARD J. STERN, CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CIRCLE TRUST COMPANY, RYAN GOLDBERG, MICHAEL GRADY, KAPLAN & CO. SECURITIES, INC., JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC., PRITCHARD CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, TIJA MANAGEMENT, TRAUTMAN WASSERMAN & COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANTS, AND THE INVESCO FUNDS AND THE AIM FUNDS AND ALL TRUSTS AND

CORPORATIONS THAT COMPRISE THE INVESCO FUNDS AND AIM FUNDS THAT WERE MANAGED BY INVESCO AND AIM, NOMINAL DEFENDANTS, in the MDL Court (Case No. 04-MD-15864-FPS; No. 04-819), filed on September 29, 2004. This lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 206 and 215 of the Investment Advisers Act; Sections 36(a), 36(b) and 47 of the Investment Company Act; control person liability under Section 48 of the Investment Company Act; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; interference with contract; and civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are seeking: removal of director defendants; removal of adviser, sub-adviser and distributor defendants; rescission of management and other contracts between the Funds and defendants; rescission of 12b-1 plans; disgorgement of management fees and other compensation/profits paid to adviser defendants; compensatory and punitive damages; and fees and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

MIRIAM CALDERON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. AVZ, INC., AMVESCAP RETIREMENT, INC., AMVESCAP NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC., AMVESCAP, ROBERT F. MCCULLOUGH, GORDON NEBEKER, JEFFREY G. CALLAHAN, AND RAYMOND R. CUNNINGHAM, in the MDL Court (Case No. 1:04-MD-15864-FPS), filed on September 29, 2004. This lawsuit alleges violations of ERISA Sections 404, 405 and 406. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are seeking: declaratory judgment; restoration of losses suffered by the plan; disgorgement of profits; imposition of a constructive trust; injunctive relief; compensatory damages; costs and attorneys' fees; and equitable restitution.

On March 1, 2006, the MDL Court entered orders on Defendants' Motions to dismiss in the derivative (Essenmacher) and class action (Lepera) lawsuits. The MDL Court dismissed all derivative causes of action in the Essenmacher lawsuit but two: (i) the excessive fee claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act"); and (ii) the "control person liability" claim under Section 48 of the 1940 Act. The MDL Court dismissed all claims asserted in the Lepera class action lawsuit but three: (i) the securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (ii) the excessive fee claim under Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act (which survived only insofar as plaintiffs seek recovery of fees associated with the assets involved in market timing); and (iii) the "control person liability" claim under Section 48 of the 1940 Act. On June 14, 2006, the MDL Court entered an order dismissing the Section 48 claim in the derivative (Essenmacher) lawsuit. Based on the MDL Court's March 1, 2006 and June 14, 2006 orders, all claims asserted against the Funds that have been transferred to the MDL Court have been dismissed, although certain Funds remain nominal defendants in the derivative (Essenmacher) lawsuit. Defendants filed their Original Answer in the class action (Lepera) lawsuit on March 31, 2006. The MDL Court has indefinitely deferred Defendants' obligation to answer the derivative (Essenmacher) lawsuit. The Plaintiffs in the class action (Lepera) lawsuit stipulated that their claims against Invesco Aim, Invesco Aim Distributors and Invesco Aim Investment Services, Inc. ("Invesco Aim Investment Services") are based solely on successor liability for alleged timing in the AIM Funds formerly advised by IFG and that they are not making any claims based on alleged timing in the other AIM Funds. Based upon this stipulation, Invesco Aim withdrew its pending Motion to Dismiss the claims against Invesco Aim, Invesco Aim Distributors and Invesco Aim Investment Services. On July 3, 2007, the Defendants filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss in both the class action (Lepera) and derivative (Essenmacher) lawsuits based on Plaintiffs' lack of standing to sue for injuries to funds the Plaintiffs do not own. On October 19, 2007, Judge Motz for the MDL Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On January 5, 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle both the class action (Lepera) and the derivative (Essenmacher) lawsuits, subject to the MDL Court approval. Individual class members have the right to object.

On September 15, 2006, Judge Motz for the MDL Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the ERISA (Calderon) lawsuit and dismissed such lawsuit. The Plaintiff appealed this decision. On June 16, 2008, the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded this lawsuit back to the MDL court for further proceedings. On December 15, 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this lawsuit, subject to the MDL Court approval. Individual class members have the right

to object. No payments are required under the settlement; however, the parties agreed that certain limited changes to benefit plans and participants' accounts would be made.