Edgar Filing: Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Name, Age and Address

Position(s) Held
with Registrant

Length of Time
Served*

Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years**

Officers (continued)***

James W. Garrett (40)

522 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036

Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

Treasurer since February 2002 and Chief Financial Officer since July 2003

Head of Global Fund Administration of Morgan Stanley Investment Management; Executive Director of Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. and various entities affiliated with Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.; Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Institutional Funds.

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED

MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES


Investment Company Act file number:		811-22192

ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT PARTNERS ABSOLUTE RETURN FUND II A

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in Charter)

100 Front Street, Suite 400

West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania

19428-2881

(Address of principal executive offices)

Amy R. Doberman, Esq.

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.

522 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10036

(Name and address of agent for service)

COPY TO:

Richard Horowitz, Esq.

Clifford Chance US LLP

31 West 52^nd Street

New York, NY 10019

(212) 878-8000

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (610) 260-7600

Date of fiscal year end: December 31

Date of reporting period: December 31, 2008

ITEM 1.

REPORTS TO STOCKHOLDERS. The Registrant’s annual report transmitted to limited partners pursuant to Rule 30e-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 is as follows:

ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT PARTNERS

ABSOLUTE RETURN FUND II A

Statement of Assets and Liabilities with Report of

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

December 31, 2008

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Financial Statements with Report of

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

For the Year Ended December 31, 2008

Contents


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		1
Statement of Assets and Liabilities		2
Notes to Statement of Assets and Liabilities		3

Investment Advisory Agreement Approval (Unaudited)		6
Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (Unaudited)		9
Quarterly Portfolio Schedule (Unaudited)		9
Information Concerning Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)		10

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholder and Board of Trustees of

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A (the “Fund”) as of December 31, 2008. This statement of assets and liabilities is the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this statement of assets and liabilities based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the statement of assets and liabilities, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall statement of assets and liabilities presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the statement of assets and liabilities referred to above presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A at December 31, 2008, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

LOGO

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

February 27, 2009

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2008


Assets
Cash	$	97,150
Deferred offering costs		390,119

Total assets		487,269


Liabilities
Due to affiliates		386,451
Offering costs payable		818

Total liabilities		387,269

Net assets	$	100,000


Net assets consist of:
Shares, 100 shares issued and outstanding, $0.001 par value, 3,000,000 registered shares	$	100,000

Net assets	$	100,000


Net asset value per share ($100,000/100 shares)	$	1,000.00

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and should be read in conjunction therewith.

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Notes to Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2008

1.	Organization

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A (the “Fund”) was organized under the laws of the State of Delaware as a statutory trust on February 27, 2008 pursuant to an Agreement and Declaration of Trust (the “Trust Deed”). The Fund has had no operations through December 31, 2008 other than those relating to organizational matters and the sale and issuance of 100 Shares, as defined below, to Morgan Stanley AIP Funding Inc. The Fund is registered under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as a closed-end, non-diversified management investment company (although it intends to comply with Subchapter M diversification requirements, as described in more detail below). The Fund’s investment objective is to seek capital appreciation principally through investing in investment funds (“Investment Funds”) managed by third party investment managers who primarily employ a variety of “absolute return” investment strategies in pursuit of attractive risk-adjusted returns consistent with the preservation of capital. “Absolute return” refers to a broad class of investment strategies that are managed without reference to the performance of equity, debt and other markets. “Absolute return” investment strategies allow investment managers the flexibility to use leveraged or short-sale positions to take advantage of perceived inefficiencies across the global capital markets. The Fund may seek to gain investment exposure to certain Investment Funds or to adjust market or risk exposure by entering into derivative transactions, such as total return swaps, options and futures.

Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP serves as the Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”) and is responsible for providing day-to-day investment management services to the Fund, subject to the supervision of the Fund’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”). The Adviser is registered as an investment adviser under the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”). The Adviser is an affiliate of Morgan Stanley. The Fund has no fixed termination date and will continue unless the Fund is otherwise terminated under the terms of the Trust Deed or unless and until required by law.

The Fund is a “Master” fund in a “Master-Feeder” structure whereby a feeder fund will invest substantially all of its assets in the Fund.

The Board has overall responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the Fund’s investment program and its management and operations. A majority of the members of the Board are not “interested persons” (as defined by the 1940 Act) of the Fund or the Adviser.

The Fund will offer on a continuous basis up to 3,000,000 shares of beneficial interest (“Shares”). Shares will be offered during an initial public offering period (until the “Initial Closing Date”, as defined in the Fund’s prospectus) at an initial offering price of $1,000 per Share and in a continuous offering thereafter at the Fund’s then current net asset value per Share. Investors purchasing Shares in the Fund (“Shareholders”) will not be charged a sales load. Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc. (the “Distributor”), an affiliate of Morgan Stanley, will act as the distributor of the Fund’s Shares on a best efforts basis, subject to various conditions. Shares may be purchased as of the first business day of each month from the Distributor or through any registered investment adviser (a “RIA”) that has entered into an arrangement with the Distributor for such RIA to offer Shares in conjunction with a “wrap” fee, asset allocation or other managed asset program sponsored by such RIA.

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Notes to Statement of Assets and Liabilities (continued)

1.	Organization (continued)

Shares will be sold only to Shareholders that represent that they are “accredited investors” within the meaning of Rule 501(a) of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and “qualified clients” within the meaning of Rule 205-3(d)(1) promulgated under the Advisers Act, as amended. The minimum initial investment in the Fund by any Shareholder is $100,000 and the minimum additional investment in the Fund by any Shareholder is $25,000. The Fund may modify these minimums from time to time. Shareholders may only purchase their Shares through the Distributor or a RIA. Any RIA who offers Shares may impose additional eligibility requirements on investors who purchase Shares through such RIA.

The Fund may from time to time offer to repurchase Shares (or portions of them) at net asset value pursuant to written tenders by Shareholders, and each such repurchase offer will generally apply up to 15% of the net assets of the Fund. Repurchases will be made at such times, in such amounts and on such terms as may be determined by the Board, in its sole discretion. In determining whether the Fund should offer to repurchase Shares (or portions of them) from Shareholders, the Board will consider the recommendations of the Adviser as to the timing of such offer, as well as a variety of operational, business and economic factors. The Adviser expects that, generally, it will recommend to the Board that the Fund offer to repurchase Shares (or portions of them) from Shareholders quarterly, on each March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31 (or, if any such date is not a business day, on the immediately preceding business day). In general, the Fund will initially pay at least 90% of the estimated value of the repurchased Shares to Shareholders as of the later of: (1) a period of within 30 days after the value of the Shares to be repurchased is determined, or (2) if the Fund has requested withdrawals of its capital from any Investment Funds in order to fund the repurchase of Shares, within ten business days after the Fund has received at least 90% of the aggregate amount withdrawn by the Fund from such Investment Funds. The remaining amount will be paid promptly after completion of the annual audit of the Fund and preparation of the Fund’s audited financial statements.

2.	Significant Accounting Policies

The following significant accounting policies are in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Such policies are consistently followed by the Fund in preparation of its financial statements. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Federal Income Taxes

The Fund intends to comply with the requirements of Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute substantially all of its taxable income to its Shareholders. Therefore, no provision for federal income taxes will be required when the Fund commences operations. The Fund intends to file tax returns with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and various states.

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Notes to Statement of Assets and Liabilities (continued)

2.	Significant Accounting Policies (continued)

Distribution of Income and Gains

The Fund will declare and pay dividends annually from net investment income. Net realized gains, if any, will be distributed at least annually. Distributions from net realized gains for book purposes may include short-term capital gains, which are included as ordinary income for tax purposes.

In order to satisfy the diversification requirements under Subchapter M of the Code, the Fund will generally invest its assets in Investment Funds organized outside the United States that are treated as corporations for U.S. tax purposes and are expected to be classified as passive foreign investment companies. As such, the Fund expects that distributions generally will be taxable as ordinary income to the Shareholder. The Fund will inform Shareholders of the amount and character of its distributions to Shareholders.

3.	Management Fee, Related Party Transactions and Other

The Fund will bear all expenses related to its investment program, including, but not limited to, expenses borne indirectly through the Fund’s investments in the underlying Investment Funds. In consideration of the advisory and other services provided by the Adviser to the Fund, the Fund, after commencement of operations, will pay the Adviser a monthly management fee of 0.125% (1.50% on an annualized basis) of the Fund’s month end net asset value. The management fee is an expense paid out of the Fund’s assets and is computed based on the value of the net assets of the Fund as of the close of business on the last business day of each month, before adjustments for any redemptions effective on that day. The management fee is in addition to the asset-based fees and incentive allocations charged by the underlying Investment Funds and indirectly borne by Shareholders in the Fund. As of December 31, 2008, the Fund did not incur management fees, as the Fund had not commenced operations.

The Adviser has contractually agreed to waive and/or reimburse the Fund for expenses (other than extraordinary expenses and certain investment related expenses, such as foreign country tax expense and interest expense on amounts borrowed by the Fund) to the extent necessary in order to cap the Fund’s total annual operating expenses at 1.75% until the termination of the Fund’s investment advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”), of which the initial term is currently scheduled to terminate on July 1, 2010.

The Fund’s organization and offering costs are estimated at $434,960. The Adviser has borne the organization costs of $21,255. Offering costs of approximately $413,705 will be capitalized and amortized over the 12 month period from the Initial Closing Date. As of December 31, 2008, the Fund incurred $390,119 of offering costs, which are included in deferred offering costs in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Due to affiliates in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities represents amounts due from the Fund to affiliated entities for reimbursement of payments for deferred offering costs made by such affiliated entities on behalf of the Fund.

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Investment Advisory Agreement Approval (Unaudited)

Nature, Extent and Quality of Services

The Board reviewed and considered the nature and extent of the investment advisory services to be provided by the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement, including selection of Investment Funds for investment of the Fund’s assets, allocation of the Fund’s assets among, and monitoring performance of, Investment Funds, evaluation of risk exposure of Investment Funds and reputation, experience and training of investment managers, management of short-term cash and operations of the Fund, day-to-day portfolio management, and general due diligence examination of Investment Funds before and after committing assets of the Fund for investment. The Board also reviewed and considered the nature and extent of the non-advisory, administrative services that the Adviser is to provide or arrange at its expense, under the Advisory Agreement, including, among other things, providing to the Fund office facilities, equipment and personnel.

The Board also reviewed and considered the qualifications of the portfolio managers, the senior administrative managers and other key personnel of the Adviser who are to provide the advisory and administrative services to the Fund. The Board determined that the Adviser’s portfolio managers and key personnel are well qualified by education and/or training and experience to perform the services in an efficient and professional manner. The Board concluded that the nature and extent of the advisory and administrative services were necessary and appropriate for the conduct of the business and investment activities of the Fund.

Performance Relative to Comparable Funds Managed by Other Advisers

The Board considered that the Adviser plans to arrange for a public offering of Shares to raise assets for investment and that the offering had not yet begun. The Board concluded that, since the Fund had no assets to invest at the time of approval and had no track record of performance, this was not a factor it needed to address at the time of approval.

Fees Relative to Other Proprietary Funds Managed by the Adviser with Comparable Investment Strategies

The Board reviewed the advisory fee rate proposed to be paid by the Fund under the Advisory Agreement. The Board noted that the Adviser manages the Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund, which has investment strategies comparable to the Fund. The Board noted that the advisory fee rate was competitive with the Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund.

Fees and Expenses Relative to Comparable Funds Managed by Other Advisers

The Board reviewed the proposed advisory fee rate and the anticipated total annual expense ratio of the Fund. The Board reviewed information provided by the Fund’s management regarding the advisory fee rates paid by an expense peer group selected by the Adviser that was being managed by other advisers with investment strategies comparable to those of the Fund. The Board considered that the Fund requires

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Investment Advisory Agreement Approval (Unaudited) (continued)

Fees and Expenses Relative to Comparable Funds Managed by Other Advisers (continued)

the Adviser to develop processes, invest in additional resources and incur additional risks to successfully manage the Fund. The Board concluded that the proposed advisory fee rate and anticipated total annual expense ratio would be competitive with those of other similar non-affiliated funds.

Breakpoints and Economies of Scale

The Board reviewed the structure of the Fund’s advisory fee schedule under the Advisory Agreement and noted that it does not include any breakpoints. The Board considered that the Fund’s potential growth was uncertain and concluded that it would be premature to consider economies of scale as a factor in approving the Advisory Agreement at the present time.

Profitability of the Adviser and Affiliates

Since the Fund had not begun operations or paid any fees to the Adviser, the Board concluded that this was not a factor that needed to be considered at the time of approval.

Fall-Out Benefits

The Board considered so-called “fall-out benefits” derived by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Fund and the Morgan Stanley Fund Complex. The Board considered sales charges on shares of its feeder fund, Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II P (“ARF II P”), charged by a broker-dealer affiliate of the Adviser. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser will receive from ARF II P a shareholder servicing fee for services to be provided by the affiliate to its customers who are shareholders of ARF II P. The Board concluded that the shareholder servicing fee and sales charges would be competitive with those of comparable funds.

Soft Dollar Benefits

The Board considered whether the Adviser will realize any benefits from commissions paid to brokers who execute securities transactions for the Fund (“soft dollars”). The Board noted that the Fund will invest only in hedge funds, derivative instruments and fixed-income securities, which do not generate soft dollars.

Adviser Financially Sound and Financially Capable of Meeting the Fund’s Needs

The Board considered whether the Adviser is financially sound and has the resources necessary to perform its obligations under the Advisory Agreement. The Board concluded that the Adviser has the financial resources necessary to fulfill its obligations under the Advisory Agreement.

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Investment Advisory Agreement Approval (Unaudited) (continued)

Relationship with the Adviser

The Board also reviewed and considered the relationship between the Adviser and the Morgan Stanley Fund Complex, including the organizational structure of the Adviser, the policies and procedures formulated and adopted by the Adviser for managing the operations and the Board’s confidence in the competence and integrity of the senior managers and key personnel of the Adviser. The Board concluded that it is beneficial for the Fund to approve the relationship with the Adviser.

Other Factors and Current Trends

The Board considered the controls and procedures adopted and implemented by the Adviser and monitored by the Fund’s Chief Compliance Officer and concluded that the conduct of business by the Adviser indicates a good faith effort on its part to adhere to high ethical standards in the conduct of the Fund’s business.

General Conclusion

After considering and weighing all of the above factors, the Board concluded that it would be in the best interest of the Fund and its future Shareholders to approve the Advisory Agreement, which must be approved annually beginning in July 2010 if it is to continue in effect.

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (Unaudited)

A copy of the Fund’s policies and procedures with respect to the voting of proxies relating to the Investment Funds is available without charge, upon request, by calling the Fund at 1-888-322-4675. This information is also available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule (Unaudited)

The Fund also files a complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the Fund’s first and third fiscal quarters on Form N-Q. The Fund’s Forms N-Q are available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Fund’s Form N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling the Fund at 1-888-322-4675.

Information Concerning Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)


Name, Age and Address	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served*	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years**	Number of Portfolios Overseen In Fund Complex ***	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held Outside the Fund Complex
Independent Trustees

Frank L. Bowman (64) c/o Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Counsel to the Independent Trustees 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036	Trustee	Since August 2006	President, Strategic Decisions, LLC (consulting) (since February 2009); Director or Trustee of various Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since August 2006); Chairperson of the Insurance Sub-Committee of the Insurance, Valuation and Compliance Committee (since February 2007); served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (policy organization) through November 2008, retired as Admiral, U.S. Navy in January 2005 after serving over 8 years as Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and Deputy Administrator-Naval Reactors in the National Nuclear Security Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy (1996-2004), Knighted as Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire; Awarded the Officer de l’Orde National du Merite by the French Government.	168	Director of the Armed Services YMCA of the USA; member BP America External Advisory Council (energy); member National Academy of Engineers.

Michael Bozic (68) c/o Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Counsel to the Independent Trustees 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036	Trustee	Since April 1994	Private Investor; Chairperson of the Insurance, Valuation and Compliance Committee (since October 2006); Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since April 1994) and Institutional Funds (since July 2003); formerly, Chairperson of the Insurance Committee (July 2006-September 2006); Vice Chairman of Kmart Corporation (December 1998-October 2000), Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Levitz Furniture Corporation (November 1995-November 1998) and President and Chief Executive Officer of Hills Department Stores (May 1991-July 1995); variously Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer (1989-1991) of the Sears Merchandise Group of Sears, Roebuck & Co.	170	Director of various business organizations.

Kathleen A. Dennis (55) c/o Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Counsel to the Independent Trustees 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036	Trustee	Since August 2006	President, Cedarwood Associates (mutual fund and investment management) (since July 2006); Chairperson of the Money Market and Alternatives Sub-Committee of the Investment Committee (since October 2006) and Director or Trustee of various Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since August 2006); formerly, Senior Managing Director of Victory Capital Management (1993-2006).	168	Director of various non- profit organizations.

Information Concerning Trustees and Officers (Unaudited) (continued)


Name, Age and Address	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served*	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years**	Number of Portfolios Overseen In Fund Complex ***	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held Outside the Fund Complex
Independent Trustees (continued)

Dr. Manuel H. Johnson (60) c/o Johnson Smick Group, Inc. 888 16^thStreet, NW Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20006	Trustee	Since July 1991	Senior Partner, John Smick International, Inc. (consulting firm); Chairperson of the Investment Committee (since October 2006) and Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since July 1991) and the Institutional Funds (since July 2003); Co-Chairman and a founder of the Group of Seven Counsel (G7C) (international economic commission); formerly, Chairperson of the Audit Committee (July 1991- September 2006); Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.	170	Director of NVR, Inc. (home construction); Director of Evergreen Energy.

Joseph J. Kearns (66) c/o Kearns & Associates LLC PMB754 23852 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265	Trustee	Since August 1994	President, Kearns & Associates LLC (investment consulting); Chairperson of the Audit Committee (since October 2006) and Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since July 2003) and the Institutional Funds (since August 1994); formerly, Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee (July 2003-September 2006) and Chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Institutional Funds (October 2001-July 2003); CFO of the J. Paul Getty Trust.	171	Director of Electro Rent Corporation (equipment leasing) and The Ford Family Foundation.

Michael F. Klein (50) c/o Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Counsel to the Independent Trustees 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036	Trustee	Since August 2006	Managing Director, Aetos Capital, LLC (since March 2000) and Co-President, Aetos Alternatives Management, LLC (since January 2004); Chairperson of the Fixed-Income Sub-Committee of the Investment Committee (since October 2006) and Director or Trustee of various Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since August 2006); formerly, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Investment Management, President, Morgan Stanley Institutional Funds (June 1998-March 2000) and Principal, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Investment Management (August 1997- December 1999).	168	Director of certain investment funds managed or sponsored by Aetos Capital, LLC. Director of Sanitized AG and Sanitized Marketing AG (specialty chemicals).

Information Concerning Trustees and Officers (Unaudited) (continued)


Name, Age and Address	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served*	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years**	Number of Portfolios Overseen In Fund Complex ***	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held Outside the Fund Complex
Independent Trustees (continued)

Michael E. Nugent (72) c/o Triumph Capital, L.P. 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022	Chairperson of the Boards and Trustee	Chairperson of the Boards since July 2006 and Trustee since July 1991	General Partner, Triumph Capital, L.P. (private investment partnership); Chairperson of the Boards of the Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since July 2006); Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since July 1991) and the Institutional Funds (since July 2001); formerly, Chairperson of the Insurance Committee (until July 2006).	170	None.

W. Allen Reed (61) † c/o Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Counsel to the Independent Trustees 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036	Trustee	Since August 2006	Chairperson of the Equity Sub- Committee of the Investment Committee (since October 2006) and Director or Trustee of various Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since August 2006); formerly, President and CEO of General Motors Asset Management; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the GM Trust Bank and Corporate Vice President of General Motors Corporation (August 1994-December 2005).	168	Director of Temple-Inland Industries (packaging and forest products); Director of Legg Mason, Inc. and Director of the Auburn University Foundation.

Fergus Reid (76) c/o Lumelite Plastics Corporation 85 Charles Coleman Blvd. Pawling, NY 12564	Trustee	Since July 1992	Chairman of Lumelite Plastics Corporation; Chairperson of the Governance Committee and Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since July 2003) and the Institutional Funds (since June 1992).	171	Trustee and Director of certain investment companies in the JPMorgan Funds complex managed by J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.
Interested Trustee

James F. Higgins (61) c/o Morgan Stanley Trust Harborside Financial Center Plaza Two Jersey City, NJ 07311	Trustee	Since June 2000	Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since June 2000) and the Institutional Funds (since July 2003); Senior Advisor of Morgan Stanley (since August 2000).	169	Director of AXA Financial, Inc. and The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (financial services).

*	This is the earliest date the Trustee began serving the Institutional Funds. Each Trustee serves an indefinite term, until his or her successor is elected.

**	The dates referenced below indicating commencement of service as Director/Trustee for the Retail Funds and the Institutional Funds reflect the earliest date the Director/Trustee began serving the Retail Funds or Institutional Funds, as applicable.

***

The Fund Complex includes all funds that have an investment advisor that is an affiliated entity of Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. (“MSIM”), Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. (“MSIA”) and Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP. The Retail Funds are those funds advised by MSIA. The Institutional Funds are certain U.S. registered funds advised by MSIM and Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP.

†	For the period from September 26, 2008 through February 5, 2009, W. Allen Reed was an Interested Trustee. At all other times covered by these financial statements, Mr. Reed was an Independent Trustee.

Information Concerning Trustees and Officers (Unaudited) (continued)


Name, Age and Address	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served*	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years**
Officers ***

Randy Takian (34) 522 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036	President and Principal Executive Officer	Since September 2008	President and Principal Executive Officer (since September 2008) of funds in the Fund Complex; President and Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Services Company Inc. (since September 2008). President of Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. (since July 2008). Head of the Retail and Intermediary business within Morgan Stanley Investment Management (since July 2008). Head of Liquidity and Bank Trust business (since July 2008) and the Latin American franchise (since July 2008) at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Managing Director, Director and/or Officer of the Investment Adviser and various entities affiliated with Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. Formerly Head of Strategy and Product Development for the Alternatives Group and Senior Loan Investment Management. Formerly with Bank of America (July 1996-March 2006), most recently as Head of the Strategy, Mergers and Acquisitions team for Global Wealth and Investment Management.

Amy R. Doberman (46) 522 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036	Vice President	Since July 2004	Managing Director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management (since July 2004); Vice President of the Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since July 2004); Vice President of the Van Kampen Funds (since August 2004); Secretary (since February 2006) and Managing Director (since July 2004) of Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. and various entities affiliated with Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. Formerly, Managing Director and General Counsel—Americas, UBS Global Asset Management (July 2000 to July 2004).

Carsten Otto (45) 522 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036	Chief Compliance Officer	Since October 2004	Managing Director and Global Head of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Investment Management (since April 2007) and Chief Compliance Officer of the Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since October 2004). Formerly, U.S. Director of Compliance (October 2004-April 2007) and Assistant Secretary and Assistant General Counsel of the Retail Funds.

Stefanie V. Chang Yu (42) 522 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036	Vice President	Since December 1997	Managing Director of the Investment Adviser and various entities affiliated with the Investment Adviser; Vice President of the Retail Funds (since July 2002) and Institutional Funds (since December 1997). Formerly, Secretary of various entities affiliated with the Investment Adviser.

Cory S. Pulfrey (49) 100 Front Street, Suite 1100 West Conshohocken, PA 19428	Vice President	Since January 2003	Managing Director of Morgan Stanley AIP; Lead Portfolio Manager for the Private Markets Portfolios; formerly, Managing Director of the Weyerhaeuser Pension Fund Investment Group.

Mustafa Jama (48) 100 Front Street, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2881	Vice President	Since June 2008	Head and Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds team; Managing Director of Morgan Stanley AIP (since January 2004). Formerly, Managing Director of Glenwood Capital Investments.

Matthew Graver (41) 100 Front Street, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2881	Vice President	Since June 2008	Chief Operating Officer and Managing Director of Morgan Stanley AIP. Formerly, Senior Manager at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Mary E. Mullin (41) 522 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036	Secretary	Since June 1999	Executive Director of Morgan Stanley & Co, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. and Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.; Secretary of the Retail Funds (since July 2003) and the Institutional Funds (since June 1999).

Information Concerning Trustees and Officers (Unaudited) (continued)

*	This is the date the Officer began serving the Retail Funds or Institutional Funds. Each Officer serves an indefinite term, until his or her successor is elected.

**	The dates referenced below indicating commencement of service as an Officer for the Retail Funds and Institutional Funds reflect the earliest date the Officer began serving the Retail Funds or Institutional Funds, as applicable.

***

In addition, the following individuals who are officers of the Investment Adviser or its affiliates serve as assistant secretaries of the Fund: Joanne Antico, Joseph C. Benedetti, Daniel Burton, John F. Cacchione, Tara A. Farrelly, Eric C. Griffith, Lou Anne D. Mclnnis, Edward J. Meehan, Elisa Mitchell, Elizabeth Nelson, Bernard V. Peterson, Debra Rubano, Sheri L. Schreck and Julien H. Yoo. The following individuals who are officers of the Adviser or its affiliates also serve as assistant treasurers of the Fund: Robin Coroniti, Noel Langlois, Eric Marmoll, Roman Osidach, Bud Rein and Francie Tai.

Alternative Investment Partners Absolute Return Fund II A

One Tower Bridge

100 Front Street, Suite 400

West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428

Trustees

Michael Nugent, Chairperson of the Board and Trustee

Frank L. Bowman

Michael Bozic

Kathleen A. Dennis

James F. Higgins

Dr. Manuel H. Johnson

Joseph J. Kearns

Michael F. Klein

W. Allen Reed

Fergus Reid

Officers

Randy Takian, President and Principal Executive Officer

Stefanie V. Chang Yu, Vice President

Cory Pulfrey, Vice President

Mustafa Jama, Vice President

Matthew Graver, Vice President

Amy R. Doberman, Vice President

Carsten Otto, Chief Compliance Officer

James W. Garrett, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

Mary E. Mullin, Secretary

Investment Adviser

Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP

One Tower Bridge

100 Front Street, Suite 400

West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428

Administrator, Custodian, Fund Accounting Agent and Escrow Agent

State Street Bank and Trust Company

One Lincoln Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02111

Transfer Agent

Boston Financial Data Services, Inc.

30 Dan Road

Canton, Massachusetts 02021

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Ernst & Young LLP

Two Commerce Square

2001 Market Street, Suite 4000

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Legal Counsel

Clifford Chance US LLP

31 West 52nd Street

New York, New York 10019

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10036

ITEM 2.

CODE OF ETHICS.

(a)

The Registrant has adopted a code of ethics (the “Code of Ethics”) that applies to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, regardless of whether these individuals are employed by the Registrant or a third party.

(b)	No information need be disclosed pursuant to this paragraph.

(c)	Exhibit B was amended to name Randy Takian as a Covered Officer, specifically as President and Principal Executive Officer.

(d)	Not applicable.

(e)	Not applicable.

(f)

(1)

The Registrant’s Code of Ethics is attached hereto as Exhibit (a)(1) pursuant to Item 12(a)(1).

(2)

Not applicable.

(3)

Not applicable.

ITEM 3.

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.

The Registrant’s Board of Directors has determined that it has one “audit committee financial expert” serving on its audit committee, who is an “independent” Director: Joseph J. Kearns. Under applicable securities laws, a person who is determined to be an audit committee financial expert will not be deemed an “expert” for any purpose, including without limitation for the purposes of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as a result of being designated or identified as an audit committee financial expert. The designation or identification of a person as an audit committee financial expert does not impose on such person any duties, obligations, or liabilities that are greater than the duties, obligations, and liabilities imposed on such person as a member of the audit committee and Board of Directors in the absence of such designation or identification.

ITEM 4.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.

(a)(b)(c)(d) and (g). Based on fees billed for the periods shown:

2008


	Registrant			Covered Entities⁽¹⁾
Audit Fees	$	15,000			N/A

Non-Audit Fees
Audit-Related Fees	$	0		$	742,276	⁽²⁾
Tax Fees	$	0	⁽³⁾	$	99,522	⁽⁴⁾
All Other Fees	$	0		$	246,887	⁽⁵⁾
Total Non-Audit Fees	$	0		$	1,088,685

Total	$	15,000		$	1,088,685

2007


	Registrant			Covered Entities⁽¹⁾
Audit Fees	$	0			N/A

Non-Audit Fees
Audit-Related Fees	$	0		$	731,800	⁽²⁾
Tax Fees	$	0	⁽³⁾	$	104,020	⁽⁴⁾
All Other Fees	$	0		$	166,270	⁽⁵⁾
Total Non-Audit Fees	$	0		$	1,002,090

Total	$	0		$	1,002,090

N/A- Not applicable, as not required by Item 4.

(1)

Covered Entities include the Adviser (excluding sub-advisors) and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser that provides ongoing services to the Registrant.

(2)

Audit-Related Fees represent assurance and related services provided that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the financial statements of the Covered Entities and funds advised by the Adviser or its affiliates, specifically attestation services provided in connection with a SAS 70 Report and advisory consulting work.

(3)

Tax Fees represent tax advice and compliance services provided in connection with the review of the Registrant’s tax returns.

(4)

Tax Fees represent tax advice services provided to Covered Entities, including research and identification of PFIC entities.

(5)

All Other Fees represent attestation services provided in connection with performance presentation standards and a compliance review project performed.

(e)(1)

The audit committee’s pre-approval policies and procedures are as follows:

AUDIT COMMITTEE

AUDIT AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES

PRE-APPROVAL POLICY AND PROCEDURES

OF THE

MORGAN STANLEY RETAIL AND INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS

AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED JULY 23, 2004¹

A.	Statement of Principles

The Audit Committee of the Board is required to review and, in its sole discretion, pre-approve all Covered Services to be provided by the Independent Auditors to the Fund and Covered Entities in order to assure that services performed by the Independent Auditors do not impair the auditor’s independence from the Fund.

The SEC has issued rules specifying the types of services that an independent auditor may not provide to its audit client, as well as the audit committee’s administration of the engagement of the independent auditor. The SEC’s rules establish two different approaches to pre-approving services, which the SEC considers to be equally valid. Proposed services either: may be pre-approved without consideration of specific case-by-case services by the Audit Committee (“general pre-approval”); or require the specific pre-approval of the Audit Committee or its delegate (“specific pre-approval”). The Audit Committee believes that the combination of these two approaches in this Policy will result in an effective and efficient procedure to pre-approve services performed by the Independent Auditors. As set forth in this Policy, unless a type of service has received general pre-approval, it will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee (or by any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval authority has been delegated) if it is to be provided by the Independent Auditors. Any proposed services exceeding pre-approved cost levels or budgeted amounts will also require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee.

The appendices to this Policy describe the Audit, Audit-related, Tax and All Other services that have the general pre-approval of the Audit Committee. The term of any general pre-approval is 12 months from the date of pre-approval, unless the Audit Committee considers and provides a different period and states otherwise. The Audit Committee will annually review and pre-approve the services that may be provided by the Independent Auditors without obtaining specific pre-approval from the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee will add to or subtract from the list of general pre-approved services from time to time, based on subsequent determinations.

The purpose of this Policy is to set forth the policy and procedures by which the Audit Committee intends to fulfill its responsibilities. It does not delegate the Audit Committee’s responsibilities to pre-approve services performed by the Independent Auditors to management.

The Fund’s Independent Auditors have reviewed this Policy and believes that implementation of the Policy will not adversely affect the Independent Auditors’ independence.

¹	This Audit Committee Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy and Procedures (the “Policy”), adopted as of the date above, supersedes and replaces all prior versions that may have been adopted from time to time.

B.	Delegation

As provided in the Act and the SEC’s rules, the Audit Committee may delegate either type of pre-approval authority to one or more of its members. The member to whom such authority is delegated must report, for informational purposes only, any pre-approval decisions to the Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting.

C.	Audit Services

The annual Audit services engagement terms and fees are subject to the specific pre-approval of the Audit Committee. Audit services include the annual financial statement audit and other procedures required to be performed by the Independent Auditors to be able to form an opinion on the Fund’s financial statements. These other procedures include information systems and procedural reviews and testing performed in order to understand and place reliance on the systems of internal control, and consultations relating to the audit. The Audit Committee will approve, if necessary, any changes in terms, conditions and fees resulting from changes in audit scope, Fund structure or other items.

In addition to the annual Audit services engagement approved by the Audit Committee, the Audit Committee may grant general pre-approval to other Audit services, which are those services that only the Independent Auditors reasonably can provide. Other Audit services may include statutory audits and services associated with SEC registration statements (on Forms N-1A, N-2, N-3, N-4, etc.), periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or other documents issued in connection with securities offerings.

The Audit Committee has pre-approved the Audit services in Appendix B.1. All other Audit services not listed in Appendix B.1 must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee (or by any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval has been delegated).

D.	Audit-related Services

Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the Fund’s financial statements and, to the extent they are Covered Services, the Covered Entities or that are traditionally performed by the Independent Auditors. Because the Audit Committee believes that the provision of Audit-related services does not impair the independence of the auditor and is consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence, the Audit Committee may grant general pre-approval to Audit-related services. Audit-related services include, among others, accounting consultations related to accounting, financial reporting or disclosure matters not classified as “Audit services”; assistance with understanding and implementing new accounting and financial reporting guidance from rulemaking authorities; agreed-upon or expanded audit procedures related to accounting and/or billing records required to respond to or comply with financial, accounting or regulatory reporting matters; and assistance with internal control reporting requirements under Forms N-SAR and/or N-CSR.

The Audit Committee has pre-approved the Audit-related services in Appendix B.2. All other Audit-related services not listed in Appendix B.2 must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee (or by any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval has been delegated).

E.	Tax Services

The Audit Committee believes that the Independent Auditors can provide Tax services to the Fund and, to the extent they are Covered Services, the Covered Entities, such as tax compliance, tax planning and tax advice without impairing the auditor’s independence, and the SEC has stated that the Independent Auditors may provide such services.

Pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the Audit Committee has pre-approved the Tax Services in Appendix B.3. All Tax services in Appendix B.3 must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee (or by any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval has been delegated).

F.	All Other Services

The Audit Committee believes, based on the SEC’s rules prohibiting the Independent Auditors from providing specific non-audit services, that other types of non-audit services are permitted. Accordingly, the Audit Committee believes it may grant general pre-approval to those permissible non-audit services classified as All Other services that it believes are routine and recurring services, would not impair the independence of the auditor and are consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence.

The Audit Committee has pre-approved the All Other services in Appendix B.4. Permissible All Other services not listed in Appendix B.4 must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee (or by any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval has been delegated).

G.	Pre-Approval Fee Levels or Budgeted Amounts

Pre-approval fee levels or budgeted amounts for all services to be provided by the Independent Auditors will be established annually by the Audit Committee. Any proposed services exceeding these levels or amounts will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is mindful of the overall relationship of fees for audit and non-audit services in determining whether to pre-approve any such services.

H.	Procedures

All requests or applications for services to be provided by the Independent Auditors that do not require specific approval by the Audit Committee will be submitted to the Fund’s Chief Financial Officer and must include a detailed description of the services to be rendered. The Fund’s Chief Financial Officer will determine whether such services are included within the list of services that have received the general pre-approval of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee will be informed on a timely basis of any such services rendered by the Independent Auditors. Requests or applications to provide services that require specific approval by the Audit Committee will be submitted to the Audit Committee by both the Independent Auditors and the Fund’s Chief Financial Officer, and must include a joint statement as to whether, in their view, the request or application is consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence.

The Audit Committee has designated the Fund’s Chief Financial Officer to monitor the performance of all services provided by the Independent Auditors and to determine whether such services are in compliance with this Policy. The Fund’s Chief Financial Officer will report to the Audit Committee on a periodic basis on the results of its monitoring. Both the Fund’s Chief Financial Officer and management will immediately report to the chairman of the Audit Committee any breach of this Policy that comes to the attention of the Fund’s Chief Financial Officer or any member of management.

I.	Additional Requirements

The Audit Committee has determined to take additional measures on an annual basis to meet its responsibility to oversee the work of the Independent Auditors and to assure the auditor’s independence

from the Fund, such as reviewing a formal written statement from the Independent Auditors delineating all relationships between the Independent Auditors and the Fund, consistent with Independence Standards Board No. 1, and discussing with the Independent Auditors its methods and procedures for ensuring independence.

J.	Covered Entities

Covered Entities include the Fund’s investment adviser(s) and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Fund’s investment adviser(s) that provides ongoing services to the Fund(s). Beginning with non-audit service contracts entered into on or after May 6, 2003, the Fund’s audit committee must pre-approve non-audit services provided not only to the Fund but also to the Covered Entities if the engagements relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Fund. This list of Covered Entities would include:

Morgan Stanley Retail Funds

Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.

Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated

Morgan Stanley DW Inc.

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited

Morgan Stanley Asset & Investment Trust Management Co., Limited

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company

Van Kampen Asset Management

Morgan Stanley Services Company, Inc.

Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc.

Morgan Stanley Trust FSB

Morgan Stanley Institutional Funds

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.

Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited

Morgan Stanley Asset & Investment Trust Management Co., Limited

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company

Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated

Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc.

Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP

Morgan Stanley Alternative Investment Partners LP

(e)(2)

Beginning with non-audit service contracts entered into on or after May 6, 2003, the audit committee also is required to pre-approve services to Covered Entities to the extent that the services are determined to have a direct impact on the operations or financial reporting of the Registrant. 100% of such services were pre-approved by the audit committee pursuant to the Audit Committee’s pre-approval policies and procedures (attached hereto).

(f)	Not applicable.

(g)	See table above.

(h)	The audit committee of the Board of Directors has considered whether the provision of services other than audit services performed by the auditors to the Registrant and Covered Entities is compatible with maintaining the auditors’ independence in performing audit services.

ITEM 5.

AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS. Not applicable to the Registrant.

ITEM 6.

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS.

The Fund has not yet commenced investment operations. Consequently, the Fund has no investments to include in a Schedule of Investments, so, as of yet, this Item 6 of Form N-CSR is inapplicable.

ITEM 7.

DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

The Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures of the Fund and its investment adviser are as follows:

MORGAN STANLEY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

I.	POLICY STATEMENT

Introduction - Morgan Stanley Investment Management’s (“MSIM”) policy and procedures for voting proxies (“Policy”) with respect to securities held in the accounts of clients applies to those MSIM entities that provide discretionary investment management services and for which an MSIM entity has authority to vote proxies. This Policy is reviewed and updated as necessary to address new and evolving proxy voting issues and standards.

The MSIM entities covered by this Policy currently include the following: Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company, Morgan Stanley Asset & Investment Trust Management Co., Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited, Van Kampen Asset Management, and Van Kampen Advisors Inc. (each an “MSIM Affiliate” and collectively referred to as the “MSIM Affiliates” or as “we” below).

Each MSIM Affiliate will use its best efforts to vote proxies as part of its authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets. With respect to the MSIM registered management investment companies (Van Kampen, Institutional and Advisor Funds—collectively referred to herein as the “MSIM Funds”), each MSIM Affiliate will vote proxies under this Policy pursuant to authority granted under its applicable investment advisory agreement or, in the absence of such authority, as authorized by the Board of Directors/Trustees of the MSIM Funds. An MSIM Affiliate will not vote proxies if the “named fiduciary” for an ERISA account has reserved the authority for itself, or in the case of an account not governed by ERISA, the investment management or investment advisory agreement does not authorize the MSIM Affiliate to vote proxies. MSIM Affiliates will vote proxies in a prudent and diligent manner and in the best interests of clients, including beneficiaries of and participants in a client’s benefit plan(s) for which the MSIM Affiliates manage assets, consistent with the objective of maximizing long-term investment returns (“Client Proxy Standard”). In certain situations, a client or its fiduciary may provide an MSIM Affiliate with a proxy voting policy. In these situations, the MSIM Affiliate will comply with the client’s policy.

Proxy Research Services - RiskMetrics Group ISS Governance Services (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis (together with other proxy research providers as we may retain from time to time, the “Research

Providers”) are independent advisers that specialize in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy-related services to institutional investment managers, plan sponsors, custodians, consultants, and other institutional investors. The services provided include in-depth research, global issuer analysis, and voting recommendations. While we may review and utilize the recommendations of the Research Providers in making proxy voting decisions, we are in no way obligated to follow such recommendations. In addition to research, ISS provides vote execution, reporting, and recordkeeping.

Voting Proxies for Certain Non-U.S. Companies - Voting proxies of companies located in some jurisdictions, particularly emerging markets, may involve several problems that can restrict or prevent the ability to vote such proxies or entail significant costs. These problems include, but are not limited to: (i) proxy statements and ballots being written in a language other than English; (ii) untimely and/or inadequate notice of shareholder meetings; (iii) restrictions on the ability of holders outside the issuer’s jurisdiction of organization to exercise votes; (iv) requirements to vote proxies in person; (v) the imposition of restrictions on the sale of the securities for a period of time in proximity to the shareholder meeting; and (vi) requirements to provide local agents with power of attorney to facilitate our voting instructions. As a result, we vote clients’ non-U.S. proxies on a best efforts basis only, after weighing the costs and benefits of voting such proxies, consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. ISS has been retained to provide assistance in connection with voting non-U.S. proxies.

II.

GENERAL PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

To promote consistency in voting proxies on behalf of its clients, we follow this Policy (subject to any exception set forth herein), including the guidelines set forth below. These guidelines address a broad range of issues, and provide general voting parameters on proposals that arise most frequently. However, details of specific proposals vary, and those details affect particular voting decisions, as do factors specific to a given company. Pursuant to the procedures set forth herein, we may vote in a manner that is not in accordance with the following general guidelines, provided the vote is approved by the Proxy Review Committee (see Section III for description) and is consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP will follow the procedures as described in Appendix A.

We endeavor to integrate governance and proxy voting policy with investment goals and to follow the Client Proxy Standard for each client. At times, this may result in split votes, for example when different clients have varying economic interests in the outcome of a particular voting matter (such as a case in which varied ownership interests in two companies involved in a merger result in different stakes in the outcome). We also may split votes at times based on differing views of portfolio managers, but such a split vote must be approved by the Proxy Review Committee.

We may abstain on matters for which disclosure is inadequate.

A. Routine Matters. We generally support routine management proposals. The following are examples of routine management proposals:

•

Approval of financial statements and auditor reports.

•

General updating/corrective amendments to the charter, articles of association or bylaws.

•

Most proposals related to the conduct of the annual meeting, with the following exceptions. We generally oppose proposals that relate to “the transaction of such other business which may come before the meeting,” and open-ended requests for adjournment. However, where management

specifically states the reason for requesting an adjournment and the requested adjournment would facilitate passage of a proposal that would otherwise be supported under this Policy (i.e. an uncontested corporate transaction), the adjournment request will be supported.

We generally support shareholder proposals advocating confidential voting procedures and independent tabulation of voting results.

B. Board of Directors

Election of directors: In the absence of a proxy contest, we generally support the board’s nominees for director except as follows:

We consider withholding support from or voting against interested directors if the company’s board does not meet market standards for director independence, or if otherwise we believe board independence is insufficient. We refer to prevalent market standards as promulgated by a stock exchange or other authority within a given market (e.g., New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq rules for most U.S. companies, and The Combined Code on Corporate Governance in the United Kingdom). Thus, for an NYSE company with no controlling shareholder, we would expect that at a minimum a majority of directors should be independent as defined by NYSE. Where we view market standards as inadequate, we may withhold votes based on stronger independence standards. Market standards notwithstanding, we generally do not view long board tenure alone as a basis to classify a director as non-independent, although lack of board turnover and fresh perspective can be a negative factor in voting on directors.

At a company with a shareholder or group that controls the company by virtue of a majority economic interest in the company, we have a reduced expectation for board independence, although we believe the presence of independent directors can be helpful, particularly in staffing the audit committee, and at times we may withhold support from or vote against a nominee on the view the board or its committees are not sufficiently independent.

ii.

We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if he or she is affiliated with a major shareholder that has representation on a board disproportionate to its economic interest.

Depending on market standards, we consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who is interested and who is standing for election as a member of the company’s compensation, nominating or audit committee.

We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if we believe a direct conflict exists between the interests of the nominee and the public shareholders, including failure to meet fiduciary standards of care and/or loyalty. We may oppose directors where we conclude that actions of directors are unlawful, unethical or negligent. We consider opposing individual board members or an entire slate if we believe the board is entrenched and/or dealing inadequately with performance problems, and/or acting with insufficient independence between the board and management.

We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee standing for election if the board has not taken action to implement generally accepted governance practices for which there is a “bright line” test. For example, in the context of the U.S. market, failure to eliminate a dead hand or slow hand poison pills would be seen as a basis for opposing one or more incumbent nominees.

In markets that encourage designated audit committee financial experts, we consider voting against members of an audit committee if no members are designated as such.

We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who has failed to attend at least 75% of board meetings within a given year without a reasonable excuse.

We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who serves on the board of directors of more than six companies (excluding investment companies). We also consider voting against a director who otherwise appears to have too many commitments to serve adequately on the board of the company.

Board independence: We generally support U.S. shareholder proposals requiring that a certain percentage (up to 66²/3%) of the company’s board members be independent directors, and promoting all-independent audit, compensation and nominating/governance committees.

Board diversity: We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals urging diversity of board membership with respect to social, religious or ethnic group.

Majority voting: We generally support proposals requesting or requiring majority voting policies in election of directors, so long as there is a carve-out for plurality voting in the case of contested elections.

Proxy access: We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to provide procedures for inclusion of shareholder nominees in company proxy statements.

Proposals to elect all directors annually: We generally support proposals to elect all directors annually at public companies (to “declassify” the Board of Directors) where such action is supported by the board, and otherwise consider the issue on a case-by-case basis based in part on overall takeover defenses at a company.

Cumulative voting: We generally support proposals to eliminate cumulative voting in the U.S. market context. (Cumulative voting provides that shareholders may concentrate their votes for one or a handful of candidates, a system that can enable a minority bloc to place representation on a board). U.S. proposals to establish cumulative voting in the election of directors generally will not be supported.

Separation of Chairman and CEO positions: We vote on shareholder proposals to separate the Chairman and CEO positions and/or to appoint a non-executive Chairman based in part on prevailing practice in particular markets, since the context for such a practice varies. In many non-U.S. markets, we view separation of the roles as a market standard practice, and support division of the roles in that context.

Director retirement age and term limits: Proposals recommending set director retirement ages or director term limits are voted on a case-by-case basis.

10.

Proposals to limit directors’ liability and/or broaden indemnification of directors. Generally, we will support such proposals provided that the officers and directors are eligible for indemnification and liability protection if they have acted in good faith on company business and were found innocent of any civil or criminal charges for duties performed on behalf of the company.

C. Corporate transactions and proxy fights. We examine proposals relating to mergers, acquisitions and other special corporate transactions (i.e., takeovers, spin-offs, sales of assets, reorganizations, restructurings and recapitalizations) on a case-by-case basis. However, proposals for mergers or other significant transactions that are friendly and approved by the Research Providers generally will be supported and in those instances will not need to be reviewed by the Proxy Review Committee, where there is no portfolio manager objection and where there is no material conflict of interest. We also analyze proxy contests on a case-by-case basis.

D. Changes in capital structure.

We generally support the following:

•

Management and shareholder proposals aimed at eliminating unequal voting rights, assuming fair economic treatment of classes of shares we hold.

•

Management proposals to increase the authorization of existing classes of common stock (or securities convertible into common stock) if: (i) a clear business purpose is stated that we can support and the number of shares requested is reasonable in relation to the purpose for which authorization is requested; and/or (ii) the authorization does not exceed 100% of shares currently authorized and at least 30% of the total new authorization will be outstanding.

•

Management proposals to create a new class of preferred stock or for issuances of preferred stock up to 50% of issued capital, unless we have concerns about use of the authority for anti-takeover purposes.

•

Management proposals to authorize share repurchase plans, except in some cases in which we believe there are insufficient protections against use of an authorization for anti-takeover purposes.

•

Management proposals to reduce the number of authorized shares of common or preferred stock, or to eliminate classes of preferred stock.

•

Management proposals to effect stock splits.

•

Management proposals to effect reverse stock splits if management proportionately reduces the authorized share amount set forth in the corporate charter. Reverse stock splits that do not adjust proportionately to the authorized share amount generally will be approved if the resulting increase in authorized shares coincides with the proxy guidelines set forth above for common stock increases.

•

Management proposals for higher dividend payouts.

We generally oppose the following (notwithstanding management support):

•

Proposals to add classes of stock that would substantially dilute the voting interests of existing shareholders.

•

Proposals to increase the authorized or issued number of shares of existing classes of stock that are unreasonably dilutive, particularly if there are no preemptive rights for existing shareholders.

•

Proposals that authorize share issuance at a discount to market rates, except where authority for such issuance is de minimis, or if there is a special situation that we believe justifies such authorization (as may be the case, for example, at a company under severe stress and risk of bankruptcy).

•

Proposals relating to changes in capitalization by 100% or more.

We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to increase dividend payout ratios, in light of market practice and perceived market weaknesses, as well as individual company payout history and current circumstances. For example, currently we perceive low payouts to shareholders as a concern at some Japanese companies, but may deem a low payout ratio as appropriate for a growth company making good use of its cash, notwithstanding the broader market concern.

E. Takeover Defenses and Shareholder Rights

Shareholder rights plans: We generally support proposals to require shareholder approval or ratification of shareholder rights plans (poison pills). In voting on rights plans or similar takeover defenses, we consider on a case-by-case basis whether the company has demonstrated a need for the defense in the context of promoting long-term share value; whether provisions of the defense are in line with generally accepted governance principles; and the specific context if the proposal is made in the midst of a takeover bid or contest for control.

Supermajority voting requirements: We generally oppose requirements for supermajority votes to amend the charter or bylaws, unless the provisions protect minority shareholders where there is a large shareholder. In line with this view, in the absence of a large shareholder we support reasonable shareholder proposals to limit such supermajority voting requirements.

Shareholder rights to call meetings: We consider proposals to enhance shareholder rights to call meetings on a case-by-case basis.

Reincorporation: We consider management and shareholder proposals to reincorporate to a different jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. We oppose such proposals if we believe the main purpose is to take advantage of laws or judicial precedents that reduce shareholder rights.

Anti-greenmail provisions: Proposals relating to the adoption of anti-greenmail provisions will be supported, provided that the proposal: (i) defines greenmail; (ii) prohibits buyback offers to large block holders (holders of at least 1% of the outstanding shares and in certain cases, a greater amount, as determined by the Proxy Review Committee) not made to all shareholders or not approved by disinterested shareholders; and (iii) contains no anti-takeover measures or other provisions restricting the rights of shareholders.

Bundled proposals: We may consider opposing or abstaining on proposals if disparate issues are “bundled” and presented for a single vote.

F. Auditors. We generally support management proposals for selection or ratification of independent auditors. However, we may consider opposing such proposals with reference to incumbent

audit firms if the company has suffered from serious accounting irregularities and we believe rotation of the audit firm is appropriate, or if fees paid to the auditor for non-audit-related services are excessive. Generally, to determine if non-audit fees are excessive, a 50% test will be applied (i.e., non-audit-related fees should be less than 50% of the total fees paid to the auditor). We generally vote against proposals to indemnify auditors.

G. Executive and Director Remuneration.

We generally support the following proposals:

•

Proposals for employee equity compensation plans and other employee ownership plans, provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan would be against shareholder interest. Such approval may be against shareholder interest if it authorizes excessive dilution and shareholder cost, particularly in the context of high usage (“run rate”) of equity compensation in the recent past; or if there are objectionable plan design and provisions.

•

Proposals relating to fees to outside directors, provided the amounts are not excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry, and provided that the structure is appropriate within the market context. While stock-based compensation to outside directors is positive if moderate and appropriately structured, we are wary of significant stock option awards or other performance-based awards for outside directors, as well as provisions that could result in significant forfeiture of value on a director’s decision to resign from a board (such forfeiture can undercut director independence).

•

Proposals for employee stock purchase plans that permit discounts up to 15%, but only for grants that are part of a broad-based employee plan, including all non-executive employees.

•

Proposals for the establishment of employee retirement and severance plans, provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan would be against shareholder interest.

Shareholder proposals requiring shareholder approval of all severance agreements will not be supported, but proposals that require shareholder approval for agreements in excess of three times the annual compensation (salary and bonus) generally will be supported. We generally oppose shareholder proposals that would establish arbitrary caps on pay. We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals that seek to limit Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs), but support such proposals where we consider SERPs to be excessive.

Shareholder proposals advocating stronger and/or particular pay-for-performance models will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of the merits of the individual proposal within the context of the particular company and its labor markets, and the company’s current and past practices. While we generally support emphasis on long-term components of senior executive pay and strong linkage of pay to performance, we consider whether a proposal may be overly prescriptive, and the impact of the proposal, if implemented as written, on recruitment and retention.

We consider shareholder proposals for U.K.-style advisory votes on pay on a case-by-case basis.

We generally support proposals advocating reasonable senior executive and director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements for shares gained in option exercises.

Management proposals effectively to re-price stock options are considered on a case-by-case basis. Considerations include the company’s reasons and justifications for a re-pricing, the company’s competitive position, whether senior executives and outside directors are excluded, potential cost to shareholders, whether the re-pricing or share exchange is on a value-for-value basis, and whether vesting requirements are extended.

H. Social, Political and Environmental Issues. We consider proposals relating to social, political and environmental issues on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they will have a financial impact on shareholder value. However, we generally vote against proposals requesting reports that are duplicative, related to matters not material to the business, or that would impose unnecessary or excessive costs. We may abstain from voting on proposals that do not have a readily determinable financial impact on shareholder value. We generally oppose proposals requiring adherence to workplace standards that are not required or customary in market(s) to which the proposals relate.

I. Fund of Funds. Certain Funds advised by an MSIM Affiliate invest only in other MSIM Funds. If an underlying fund has a shareholder meeting, in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest, such proposals will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders of the underlying fund, unless otherwise determined by the Proxy Review Committee.

III.

ADMINISTRATION OF POLICY

The MSIM Proxy Review Committee (the “Committee”) has overall responsibility for creating and implementing the Policy, working with an MSIM staff group (the “Corporate Governance Team”). The Committee, which is appointed by MSIM’s Chief Investment Officer of Global Equities (“CIO”), consists of senior investment professionals who represent the different investment disciplines and geographic locations of the firm. Because proxy voting is an investment responsibility and impacts shareholder value, and because of their knowledge of companies and markets, portfolio managers and other members of investment staff play a key role in proxy voting, although the Committee has final authority over proxy votes.

The Committee Chairperson is the head of the Corporate Governance Team, and is responsible for identifying issues that require Committee deliberation or ratification. The Corporate Governance Team, working with advice of investment teams and the Committee, is responsible for voting on routine items and on matters that can be addressed in line with these Policy guidelines. The Corporate Governance Team has responsibility for voting case-by-case where guidelines and precedent provide adequate guidance, and to refer other case-by-case decisions to the Proxy Review Committee.

The Committee will periodically review and have the authority to amend, as necessary, the Policy and establish and direct voting positions consistent with the Client Proxy Standard.

A.	Committee Procedures

The Committee will meet at least monthly to (among other matters) address any outstanding issues relating to the Policy or its implementation. The Corporate Governance Team will timely communicate to ISS MSIM’s Policy (and any amendments and/or any additional guidelines or procedures the Committee may adopt).

The Committee will meet on an ad hoc basis to (among other matters): (1) authorize “split voting” (i.e., allowing certain shares of the same issuer that are the subject of the same proxy solicitation and held by one or more MSIM portfolios to be voted differently than other shares) and/or “override voting” (i.e., voting all MSIM portfolio shares in a manner contrary to the Policy); (2) review and approve upcoming votes, as appropriate, for matters for which specific direction has been provided in this Policy; and (3) determine how to vote matters for which specific direction has not been provided in this Policy.

Members of the Committee may take into account Research Providers’ recommendations and research as well as any other relevant information they may request or receive, including portfolio manager and/or analyst research, as applicable. Generally, proxies related to securities held in accounts that are managed pursuant to quantitative, index or index-like strategies (“Index Strategies”) will be voted in the same manner as those held in actively managed accounts, unless economic interests of the accounts differ. Because accounts managed using Index Strategies are passively managed accounts, research from portfolio managers and/or analysts related to securities held in these accounts may not be available. If the affected securities are held only in accounts that are managed pursuant to Index Strategies, and the proxy relates to a matter that is not described in this Policy, the Committee will consider all available information from the Research Providers, and to the extent that the holdings are significant, from the portfolio managers and/or analysts.

B.	Material Conflicts of Interest

In addition to the procedures discussed above, if the Committee determines that an issue raises a material conflict of interest, the Committee will request a special committee to review, and recommend a course of action with respect to, the conflict(s) in question (“Special Committee”).

The Special Committee shall be comprised of the Chairperson of the Proxy Review Committee, the Chief Compliance Officer or his/her designee, a senior portfolio manager (if practicable, one who is a member of the Proxy Review Committee) designated by the Proxy Review Committee, and MSIM’s relevant Chief Investment Officer or his/her designee, and any other persons deemed necessary by the Chairperson. The Special Committee may request the assistance of MSIM’s General Counsel or his/her designee who will have sole discretion to cast a vote. In addition to the research provided by Research Providers, the Special Committee may request analysis from MSIM Affiliate investment professionals and outside sources to the extent it deems appropriate.

C.	Identification of Material Conflicts of Interest

A potential material conflict of interest could exist in the following situations, among others:

The issuer soliciting the vote is a client of MSIM or an affiliate of MSIM and the vote is on a material matter affecting the issuer.

The proxy relates to Morgan Stanley common stock or any other security issued by Morgan Stanley or its affiliates except if echo voting is used, as with MSIM Funds, as described herein.

Morgan Stanley has a material pecuniary interest in the matter submitted for a vote (e.g., acting as a financial advisor to a party to a merger or acquisition for which Morgan Stanley will be paid a success fee if completed).

If the Chairperson of the Committee determines that an issue raises a potential material conflict of interest, depending on the facts and circumstances, the Chairperson will address the issue as follows:

If the matter relates to a topic that is discussed in this Policy, the proposal will be voted as per the Policy.

If the matter is not discussed in this Policy or the Policy indicates that the issue is to be decided case-by-case, the proposal will be voted in a manner consistent with the Research Providers, provided that all the Research Providers have the same recommendation, no portfolio manager objects to that vote, and the vote is consistent with MSIM’s Client Proxy Standard.

If the Research Providers’ recommendations differ, the Chairperson will refer the matter to the Committee to vote on the proposal. If the Committee determines that an issue raises a material conflict of interest, the Committee will request a Special Committee to review and recommend a course of action, as described above. Notwithstanding the above, the Chairperson of the Committee may request a Special Committee to review a matter at any time as he/she deems necessary to resolve a conflict.

D.	Proxy Voting Reporting

The Committee and the Special Committee, or their designee(s), will document in writing all of their decisions and actions, which documentation will be maintained by the Committee and the Special Committee, or their designee(s), for a period of at least 6 years. To the extent these decisions relate to a security held by an MSIM Fund, the Committee and Special Committee, or their designee(s), will report their decisions to each applicable Board of Trustees/Directors of those Funds at each Board’s next regularly scheduled Board meeting. The report will contain information concerning decisions made by the Committee and Special Committee during the most recently ended calendar quarter immediately preceding the Board meeting.

The Corporate Governance Team will timely communicate to applicable portfolio managers and to ISS, decisions of the Committee and Special Committee so that, among other things, ISS will vote proxies consistent with their decisions.

MSIM will promptly provide a copy of this Policy to any client requesting it. MSIM will also, upon client request, promptly provide a report indicating how each proxy was voted with respect to securities held in that client’s account.

MSIM’s Legal Department is responsible for filing an annual Form N-PX on behalf of each MSIM Fund for which such filing is required, indicating how all proxies were voted with respect to such Fund’s holdings.

APPENDIX A

The following procedures apply to accounts managed by Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP (“AIP”).

Generally, AIP will follow the guidelines set forth in Section II of MSIM’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures. To the extent that such guidelines do not provide specific direction, or AIP determines that consistent with the Client Proxy Standard, the guidelines should not be followed, the Proxy Review Committee has delegated the voting authority to vote securities held by accounts managed by AIP to the Liquid Markets investment team and the Private Markets investment team of AIP. A summary of decisions made by the investment teams will be made available to the Proxy Review Committee for its information at the next scheduled meeting of the Proxy Review Committee.

In certain cases, AIP may determine to abstain from determining (or recommending) how a proxy should be voted (and therefore abstain from voting such proxy or recommending how such proxy should be voted), such as where the expected cost of giving due consideration to the proxy does not justify the potential benefits to the affected account(s) that might result from adopting or rejecting (as the case may be) the measure in question.

Waiver of Voting Rights

For regulatory reasons, AIP may either 1) invest in a class of securities of an underlying fund (the “Fund”) that does not provide for voting rights; or 2) waive 100% of its voting rights with respect to the following:

Any rights with respect to the removal or replacement of a director, general partner, managing member or other person acting in a similar capacity for or on behalf of the Fund (each individually a “Designated Person,” and collectively, the “Designated Persons”), which may include, but are not limited to, voting on the election or removal of a Designated Person in the event of such Designated Person’s death, disability, insolvency, bankruptcy, incapacity, or other event requiring a vote of interest holders of the Fund to remove or replace a Designated Person; and

Any rights in connection with a determination to renew, dissolve, liquidate, or otherwise terminate or continue the Fund, which may include, but are not limited to, voting on the renewal, dissolution, liquidation, termination or continuance of the Fund upon the occurrence of an event described in the Fund’s organizational documents; provided, however, that, if the Fund’s organizational documents require the consent of the Fund’s general partner or manager, as the case may be, for any such termination or continuation of the Fund to be effective, then AIP may exercise its voting rights with respect to such matter.

APPENDIX B

The following procedures apply to the portion of the Van Kampen Dynamic Credit Opportunities Fund (“VK Fund”) sub advised by Avenue Europe International Management, L.P. (“Avenue”). (The portion of the VK Fund managed solely by Van Kampen Asset Management will continue to be subject to MSIM’s Policy.)

Generally: With respect to Avenue’s portion of the VK Fund, the Board of Trustees of the VK Fund will retain sole authority and responsibility for proxy voting. The Adviser’s

involvement in the voting process of Avenue’s portion of the VK Fund is a purely administrative function, and serves to execute and deliver the proxy voting decisions made by the VK Fund Board in connection with the Avenue portion of the VK Fund, which may, from time to time, include related administrative tasks such as receiving proxies, following up on missing proxies, and collecting data related to proxies. As such, the Adviser shall not be deemed to have voting power or shared voting power with Avenue with respect to Avenue’s portion of the Fund.

Voting Guidelines: All proxies, with respect to Avenue’s portion of the VK Fund, will be considered by the VK Fund Board or such subcommittee as the VK Fund Board may designate from time to time for determination and voting approval. The VK Board or its subcommittee will timely communicate to MSIM’s Corporate Governance Group its proxy voting decisions, so that among other things the votes will be effected consistent with the VK Board’s authority.

Administration: The VK Board or its subcommittee will meet on an adhoc basis as may be required from time to time to review proxies that require its review and determination. The VK Board or its subcommittee will document in writing all of its decisions and actions which will be maintained by the VK Fund, or its designee(s), for a period of at least 6 years. If a subcommittee is designated, a summary of decisions made by such subcommittee will be made available to the full VK Board for its information at its next scheduled respective meetings.

ITEM 8.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS.

(a)(1) This information is as of March 6, 2009

Mustafa A. Jama. Mr. Jama is a Managing Director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. (“MSIM”). Effective February 2005, Mr. Jama began serving as Chief Investment Officer and Head of Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds of Morgan Stanley AIP and, since 2004, he has been a portfolio manager for several Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds portfolios. Prior to joining MSIM in January 2004, he was with Glenwood Capital Investments where he was a senior investment professional and a member of its Investment Committee. Previously, he was a portfolio manager at Deutsche Asset Management in its hedge fund group, focusing on long/short equity, fixed income, and convertible arbitrage strategies. He holds an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a B.S. in civil engineering from Southern University.

José F. González-Heres. Mr. González-Heres is a Managing Director of MSIM and a portfolio manager for several Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds portfolios . He was promoted to Portfolio Manager in 2004 after having served as Senior Research Analyst since 2001. Prior to joining MSIM, he served as Chief Executive Officer of Suggestionator, Inc., a privately held software company. Mr. González-Heres has also worked as an Investment Banker in the Public Finance departments of Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. and Prudential Securities Inc. Prior to his investment banking positions, Mr. González-Heres worked at IBM Corporation in Engineering, Sales, Marketing and Consulting and at IBM Credit Corporation in its Corporate Finance Department. While at IBM, he earned a U.S. and international patent for his work on algorithms. Mr. González-Heres is a past Board Member of the City of Boca Raton and Florida’s Telecommunications Advisory Board. He holds an M.B.A. from the Yale University School of Management in Finance and Investments and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Northwestern University.

Paresh Bhatt. Mr. Bhatt is an Executive Director of MSIM and a portfolio manager for several Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds portfolios. He was promoted to portfolio manager in July 2004 after having served as a Research Analyst since he joined MSIM in May 2003. Prior to joining MSIM, he was a Senior Investment Analyst with SEI Investments where he managed multi-manager global equity and Europe, Australia and Far East (EAFE) portfolios as well as led due diligence activities on institutional quality funds of hedge funds. Prior to joining SEI Investments, he was an Equity Analyst for Granite Associates where he conducted equity research in the technology, media and telecom sector and monitored hedge fund investments. He has also held positions at Lehman Brothers and Bankers Trust, where he focused on credit risk management of derivatives portfolios. Mr. Bhatt began his career with the Federal Reserve Board. Mr. Bhatt holds an M.B.A. from the Wharton School in Finance and a B.A. in Economics from Union College.

Kevin Kuntz. Mr. Kuntz is an Executive Director of MSIM and, since joining the Adviser in 2006, has been a portfolio manager for several Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds portfolios. He is also a member of the Investment Committee. Before joining Morgan Stanley, Mr. Kuntz was a portfolio manager at Ramius HVB Partners LLC, a division of Ramius Capital LLC, where he was responsible for the long/short equity components for fund of hedge funds vehicles. Prior to that, he was portfolio manager and strategy head for long/short equity research at J.P. Morgan Alternative Asset Management. Prior to that, he worked in trading and risk management. Mr. Kuntz received a B.S. in Finance from St. John’s University.

Mark L.W. van der Zwan, CFA. Mr. van der Zwan is an Executive Director of MSIM and a portfolio manager for several Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds portfolios. He was promoted to portfolio manager in September 2006 after having served as an investment analyst since he joined MSIM in September 2004. He is also a member of the Investment Committee. Prior to joining MSIM, he was a senior consultant with Alan D. Biller & Associates, Inc., an institutional investment consulting firm with approximately $40 billion in assets under advisory. He has also held various positions at the National Research Council of Canada where he conducted advanced computational modeling research. Mr. van der Zwan received both a B.Sc. with honors in chemistry and an M.B.A. in finance from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada. Mr. van der Zwan holds the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

Lawrence Berner. Mr. Berner is an Executive Director of MSIM and a portfolio manager for several Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds portfolios. Mr. Berner joined the Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds team in April 2006 as an investment analyst, focusing on credit and event driven strategies including merger arbitrage, equity special situations, credit arbitrage, capital structure arbitrage and distressed investing. Before joining AIP, Mr. Berner was an analyst at Man-Glenwood Capital Investments for six years where he was responsible for hedge fund manager selection, portfolio construction and quantitative analysis. Prior to Man-Glenwood, he was a risk analyst at ABN Amro, focusing on fixed income and foreign exchange derivatives. Before that, he was a commodities research analyst at Salomon Smith Barney. Mr. Berner received both a B.S. in computer science and a B.A. in mathematics from the University of Texas, Austin. He also received an M.S. in financial mathematics from The University of Chicago. Mr. Berner holds the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

(a)(2)(i-iii) Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Managers

Because the portfolio managers manage assets for other investment companies, pooled investment vehicles, and/or other accounts (including institutional clients, pension plans and certain high net worth individuals), there may be an incentive to favor one client over another resulting in conflicts of interest. For instance, the Adviser may receive fees from certain accounts that are higher than the fee it receives from the Fund, or it may receive a performance-based fee on certain accounts. In those instances, the

portfolio managers may have an incentive to favor the higher and/or performance-based fee accounts over the Fund. In addition, a conflict of interest could exist to the extent the Adviser has proprietary investments in certain accounts, where portfolio managers have personal investments in certain accounts or when certain accounts are investment options in the Adviser’s employee benefits and/or deferred compensation plans. The portfolio manager may have an incentive to favor these accounts over others. If the Adviser manages accounts that engage in short sales of securities of the type in which the Fund invests, the Adviser could be seen as harming the performance of the Fund for the benefit of the accounts engaging in short sales if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall. The Adviser has adopted trade allocation and other policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to address these and other conflicts of interest.

The following tables show information regarding accounts (other than the Fund) managed by each named portfolio manager as of December 31, 2008.


Mustafa A. Jama Jose F. Gonzalez-Heres Paresh Bhatt Kevin Kuntz Mark L. W. van der Zwan Lawrence Berner	Number of Accounts	Total Assets in Accounts ($ billion)
Registered Investment Companies	Three	$	3.57
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Eighteen	$	3.86
Other Accounts	Seven	$	4.20

(a)(2)(iv) Conflicts of Interests -

THE ADVISER AND THE INVESTMENT MANAGERS

The Adviser also provides investment advisory and other services, directly and through affiliates, to various entities and accounts other than the Fund (“Adviser Accounts”). The Fund has no interest in these activities. The Adviser and the investment professionals who, on behalf of the Adviser, provide investment advisory services to the Fund are engaged in substantial activities other than on behalf of the Fund, may have differing economic interests in respect of such activities, and may have conflicts of interest in allocating their time and activity between the Fund and the Adviser Accounts. Such persons devote only so much time to the affairs of the Fund as in their judgment is necessary and appropriate.

Set out below are practices that the Adviser and may follow. Although the Adviser anticipates that Investment Managers will follow practices similar to those described below, no guarantee or assurances can be made that similar practices will be followed or that an Investment Manager will adhere to, and comply with, its stated practices. An Investment Manager may provide investment advisory and other services, directly or through affiliates, to various entities and accounts other than the Investment Funds.

PARTICIPATION IN INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES

The Adviser expects to employ an investment program for the Fund that is substantially similar to the investment program (or, in some cases, to portions of the investment program) employed by it for certain Adviser Accounts. As a general matter, the Adviser will consider participation by the Fund in all appropriate investment opportunities that are under consideration for those Adviser Accounts. There may

be circumstances, however, under which the Adviser will cause one or more Adviser Accounts to commit a larger percentage of their respective assets to an investment opportunity than that to which the Adviser will commit the Fund’s assets. There also may be circumstances under which the Adviser will consider participation by Adviser Accounts in investment opportunities in which the Adviser does not intend to invest on behalf of the Fund, or vice versa.

The Adviser evaluates for the Fund and for the Adviser Accounts a variety of factors that may be relevant in determining whether a particular investment opportunity or strategy is appropriate and feasible for the Fund or an Adviser Account at a particular time, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the nature of the investment opportunity taken in the context of the other investments at the time; (2) the liquidity of the investment relative to the needs of the particular entity or account; (3) the availability of the opportunity (i.e., size of obtainable position); (4) the transaction costs involved; and (5) the investment or regulatory limitations applicable to the particular entity or account. Because these considerations may differ for the Fund and the Adviser Accounts in the context of any particular investment opportunity, the investment activities of the Fund and the Adviser Accounts may differ from time to time. In addition, the fees and expenses of the Fund differ from those of the Adviser Accounts. Accordingly, the future performance of the Fund and the Adviser Accounts will vary.

When the Adviser determines that it would be appropriate for the Fund and one or more Adviser Accounts to participate in an investment transaction in the same Investment Fund or other investment at the same time, it will attempt to aggregate, place and allocate orders on a basis that the Adviser believes to be fair and equitable, consistent with its responsibilities under applicable law. Decisions in this regard are necessarily subjective and there is no requirement that the Fund participate, or participate to the same extent as the Adviser Accounts, in all investments or trades. However, no participating entity or account will receive preferential treatment over any other and the Adviser will take steps to ensure that no participating entity or account will be systematically disadvantaged by the aggregation, placement and allocation of orders and investments.

Situations may occur, however, where the Fund could be disadvantaged because of the investment activities conducted by the Adviser for the Adviser Accounts. Such situations may be based on, among other things, the following: (1) legal restrictions or other limitations (including limitations imposed by Investment Managers with respect to Investment Funds) on the combined size of positions that may be taken for the Fund and/or the Adviser Accounts, thereby limiting the size of the Fund’s position or the availability of the investment opportunity; (2) the difficulty of liquidating an investment for the Fund and the Adviser Accounts where the market cannot absorb the sale of the combined positions; and (3) the determination that a particular investment is warranted only if hedged with an option or other instrument and there is a limited availability of such options or other instruments. In particular, the Fund may be legally restricted from entering into a “joint transaction” (as defined in the 1940 Act) with the Adviser Accounts with respect to the securities of an issuer without first obtaining exemptive relief from the SEC. See “Other Matters” below.

Directors, principals, officers, employees and affiliates of the Adviser and each Investment Manager may buy and sell securities or other investments for their own accounts and may have actual or potential conflicts of interest with respect to investments made on behalf of the Fund or an Investment Fund in which the Fund invests. As a result of differing trading and investment strategies or constraints, positions may be taken by directors, principals, officers, employees and affiliates of the Adviser or an Investment Manager, or by the Adviser for the Adviser Accounts, or by an Investment Manager on behalf of its own other accounts (“Investment Manager Accounts”) that are the same as, different from or made at a different time from that of, positions taken for the Fund or an Investment Fund.

Investment Managers or their affiliates may from time to time provide investment advisory or other services to private investment funds and other entities or accounts managed by the Adviser or its affiliates. In addition, Investment Managers or their affiliates may from time to time receive research products and services in connection with the brokerage services that affiliates of the Adviser may provide to one or more Investment Manager Accounts or the Fund.

OTHER MATTERS

An Investment Manager may from time to time cause an Investment Fund to effect certain principal transactions in securities with one or more Investment Manager Accounts, subject to certain conditions. For example, these transactions may be made in circumstances in which the Investment Manager determined it was appropriate for the Investment Fund to purchase and an Investment Manager Account to sell, or the Investment Fund to sell and an Investment Manager Account to purchase, the same security or instrument on the same day. Future investment activities of the Investment Managers, or their affiliates, and the principals, partners, directors, officers or employees of the foregoing, may give rise to additional conflicts of interest.

The Adviser and its affiliates will not purchase securities or other property from, or sell securities or other property to, the Fund, except that the Fund may in accordance with rules under the 1940 Act engage in transactions with accounts that are affiliated with the Fund as a result of common officers, directors, advisers or managing general partners. These transactions would be effected in circumstances in which the Adviser determined that it would be appropriate for the Fund to purchase and another client to sell, or the Fund to sell and another client to purchase, the same security or instrument on the same day.

Future investment activities of the Adviser and its affiliates and their principals, partners, directors, officers or employees may give rise to conflicts of interest other than those described above.

(a)(3) Portfolio Manager Compensation Structure

Portfolio managers receive a combination of base compensation and discretionary compensation, comprising a cash bonus and several deferred compensation programs described below. The methodology used to determine portfolio manager compensation is applied across all funds/accounts managed by the portfolio manager(s).

Base salary compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base salary compensation based on the level of their position with the Adviser.

Discretionary compensation. In addition to base compensation, portfolio managers may receive discretionary compensation.

Discretionary compensation can include:

•

Cash Bonus.

•

Morgan Stanley’s Long Term Incentive Compensation awards – a mandatory program that defers a portion of discretionary year-end compensation into restricted stock units or other awards based on Morgan Stanley common stock or other investments that are subject to vesting and other conditions.

•

Investment Management Alignment Plan (IMAP) awards – a mandatory program that defers a portion of discretionary year-end compensation and notionally invests it in designated funds advised by the Adviser or its affiliates. The award is subject to vesting and other conditions. Portfolio managers must notionally invest a minimum of 25% to a maximum of 100% of their IMAP deferral account into a combination of the designated funds they manage that are included in the IMAP fund menu, which may or may not include the Fund.

•

Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plans – voluntary programs that permit certain employees to elect to defer a portion of their discretionary year-end compensation and directly or notionally invest the deferred amount across a range of designated investment funds, including funds advised by the Adviser or its affiliates.

Several factors determine discretionary compensation, which can vary by portfolio management team and circumstances. In order of relative importance, these factors typically include:

•

Investment performance. A portfolio manager’s compensation is linked to the pre-tax investment performance of the fund’s/accounts managed by the portfolio manager. Investment performance is calculated for one-, three- and five-year periods measured against the fund’s/account’s primary benchmark (as indicated in the fund’s prospectus), indices and/or peer groups where applicable. Generally, the greatest weight is placed on the three- and five-year periods.

•

Revenues generated by the investment companies, pooled investment vehicles and other accounts managed by the portfolio manager.

•

Contribution to the business objectives of the Adviser.

•

The dollar amount of assets managed by the portfolio manager.

•

Market compensation survey research by independent third parties.

•

Other qualitative factors, such as contributions to client objectives.

•

Performance of Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Investment Management, and the overall performance of the investment team(s) of which the portfolio manager is a member.

(a)(4) Securities Ownership of Portfolio Managers

As of December 31, 2008 none of Mustafa A. Jama, Jose F. Gonzalez-Heres, Paresh Bhatt, Kevin Kuntz, Mark L.W. van der Zwan or Lawrence Berner owned any securities in the Fund.

(b) Not Applicable

ITEM 9.

PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES. Not applicable to the Registrant.

ITEM 10.

SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.

Not applicable.

ITEM 11.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

(a)

The Registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures are sufficient to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant in this Form N-CSR was recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms, based upon such officers’ evaluation of these controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of the report.

(b)

There were no changes in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal half-year (the registrant’s second fiscal half-year in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 12.

EXHIBITS.

(a)

(1) Code of Ethics, as the subject to the disclosure required by Item 2.

(2) Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer attached to this report as part of EX-99.CERT.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT PARTNERS ABSOLUTE RETURN FUND II A

By:		/s/ Randy Takian
Name:		Randy Takian
Title:		President
Date:		March 6, 2009

Pursuant to the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


By:		/s/ Randy Takian
Name:		Randy Takian
Title:		Principal Executive Officer
Date:		March 6, 2009

By:		/s/ James W. Garrett
Name:		James W. Garrett
Title:		Principal Financial Officer
Date:		March 6, 2009