In late 2003, J. & W. Seligman & Co. Incorporated ("Seligman") conducted an extensive internal review concerning mutual fund trading practices. Seligman’s review, which covered the period 2001-2003, noted one arrangement that permitted frequent trading in certain open-end registered investment companies managed by Seligman (the “Seligman Funds”); this arrangement was in the process of being closed down by Seligman before September 2003. Seligman identified three other arrangements that permitted frequent trading, all of which had been terminated by September 2002. In January 2004, Seligman, on a voluntary basis, publicly disclosed these four arrangements to its clients and to shareholders of the Seligman Funds. Seligman also provided information concerning mutual fund trading practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (“NYAG”).

In September 2005, the New York staff of the SEC indicated that it was considering recommending to the Commissioners of the SEC the instituting of a formal action against Seligman and Seligman Advisors, Inc. relating to frequent trading in the Seligman Funds. Seligman responded to the staff in October 2005 that it believed that any action would be both inappropriate and unnecessary, especially in light of the fact that Seligman had previously resolved the underlying issue with the Independent Directors of the Seligman Funds and made recompense to the affected Seligman Funds.

In September 2006, the NYAG commenced a civil action in New York State Supreme Court against Seligman, Seligman Advisors, Inc., Seligman Data Corp. and Brian T. Zino (collectively, the “Seligman Parties”), alleging, in substance, that, in addition to the four arrangements noted above, the Seligman Parties permitted other persons to engage in frequent trading and, as a result, the prospectus disclosure used by the registered investment companies managed by Seligman is and has been misleading. The NYAG included other related claims and also claimed that the fees charged by Seligman to the Seligman Funds were excessive. The NYAG is seeking damages of at least $80 million and restitution, disgorgement, penalties and costs and injunctive relief. The Seligman Parties answered the complaint in December 2006 and believe that the claims are without merit.

Any resolution of these matters may include the relief noted above or other sanctions or changes in procedures. Any damages would be paid by Seligman and not by the Seligman Funds. If the NYAG obtains injunctive relief, Seligman and its affiliates could, in the absence of the SEC in its discretion granting exemptive relief, be enjoined from providing advisory and underwriting services to the Seligman Funds and other registered investment companies.

Seligman does not believe that the foregoing legal action or other possible actions will have a material adverse impact on Seligman or its clients, including the Seligman Funds and other investment companies managed by it; however, there can be no assurance of this or that these matters and any related publicity will not affect demand for shares of the Seligman Funds and such other investment companies or have other adverse consequences.

March 31, 2008