Edgar Filing: Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Office of the Fund
1555 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309

Investment Adviser
Invesco Advisers, Inc.
1555 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309

Auditors
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 2900
Houston, TX 77002-5678

Custodian
State Street Bank and Trust Company
225 Franklin
Boston, MA 02110-2801

Counsel to the Fund
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
155 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606

Transfer Agent
Computershare Trust Company, N.A.
P.O. Box 43078
Providence, RI 02940-3078

nvcsr


	OMB APPROVAL
	OMB Number: 3235-0570
	Expires: January 31, 2014
	Estimated average burden hours per response: 20.6

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 811-06567

Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

1555 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

Colin Meadows 1555 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (713) 626-1919

Date of fiscal year end: 2/28

Date of reporting period: 2/29/12

Item 1. Reports to Stockholders.


Annual Report to Shareholders		February 29, 2012

Invesco Van Kampen Municipal
Opportunity Trust

NYSE:VMO



2		Performance Summary
2		Management Discussion
4		Additional Information
5		Dividend Reinvestment Plan
6		Schedule of Investments
20		Financial Statements
23		Notes to Financial Statements
29		Financial Highlights
31		Auditor’s Report
32		Tax Information
33		Supplemental Information
T-1		Trustees and Officers

Management’s Discussion of Trust Performance

Performance summary

This is the annual report of Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012. The Trust’s return can be calculated based on either the market price or the net asset value (NAV) of its shares. NAV per share is determined by dividing the value of the Trust’s portfolio securities, cash and other assets, less all liabilities and preferred shares, by the total number of common shares outstanding. Market price reflects the supply and demand for Trust shares. As a result, the two returns can differ, as they did during the reporting period. A main contributor to return on an NAV basis was the Trust’s exposure to education and hospital bonds.

Performance

Total returns, 2/28/11 to 2/29/12


Trust at NAV	23.19	%

Trust at Market Value	31.40

Barclays Municipal Bond Index^▼	12.42



Market Price Premium to NAV as of 2/29/12	7.18

Source:^▼Lipper Inc.

The performance data quoted represent past performance and cannot guarantee comparable future results; current performance may be lower or higher. Investment return, net asset value and common share market price will fluctuate so that you may have a gain or loss when you sell shares. Please visit invesco.com/us for the most recent month-end performance. Performance figures reflect Trust expenses, the reinvestment of distributions (if any) and changes in net asset value (NAV) for performance based on NAV and changes in market price for performance based on market price.
Since the Trust is a closed-end management investment company, shares of the Trust may trade at a discount or premium from the NAV. This characteristic is separate and distinct from the risk that NAV could decrease as a result of investment activities and may be a greater risk to investors expecting to sell their shares after a short time. The Trust cannot predict whether shares will trade at, above or below NAV. The Trust should not be viewed as a vehicle for trading purposes. It is designed primarily for risk-tolerant long-term investors.

How we invest

We seek to provide investors with a high level of current income exempt from federal income tax, consistent with preservation of capital, primarily through investment in a diversified portfolio of investment grade municipal securities.

We seek to achieve the Trust’s investment objective by investing primarily in municipal securities that are rated investment grade by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization and that are exempt from federal taxes. Municipal obligations include municipal bonds, municipal notes, municipal commercial paper and lease obligations. The Trust also may invest in

non-investment grade and unrated securities that we determine to be of comparable or higher quality. From time to time, we may invest in municipal securities that pay interest that is subject to the federal alternative minimum tax.

We employ a bottom-up, research-driven approach to identify securities that have attractive risk/reward characteristics for the sectors in which we invest. We also integrate macroeconomic analysis and forecasting into our evaluation and ranking of various sectors and individual securities. Finally, we employ leverage in an effort to enhance the Trust’s income and total return.

Sell decisions are based on:


n		A deterioration or likely deterioration of an individual issuer’s capacity to meet its debt obligations on a timely basis.

n		A deterioration or likely deterioration of the broader fundamentals of a particular industry or sector.

n		Opportunities in the secondary or primary market to purchase a security with better relative value.

Market conditions and your Trust

For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012, the municipal market performed strongly. The Barclays Municipal Bond Index returned 12.42%, outperforming other fixed income indexes such as the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index, which returned 8.37%; the Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Index, which returned 6.94%; the Barclays U.S. Corporate Investment Grade Index, which returned 10.37%; and the Barclays U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities Index, which returned 6.44%.¹

During 2011, credit fundamentals remained strong, and default rates continued their downward trend. In line with the drop exhibited from 2009 to 2010, the number of defaults in 2011 was muted and lower than 2010. Despite a few high profile bankruptcies such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Jefferson County, Alabama and Central Falls, Rhode Island, defaults came nowhere near the “hundreds of billions of dollars” predicted by well-known analyst Meredith Whitney at the end of 2010. ²

In terms of municipal fund flows, Whitney’s prediction raised concerns regarding the credit stability of municipalities and the heightened risk of unprecedented defaults in 2011. Retail investors, who already had been making withdrawals from municipal bond mutual funds, heeded Whitney’s warning and began to sell shares at a record pace.³ Money was

Portfolio Composition

By credit sector, based on total investments


Revenue Bonds	87.0	%

General Obligation Bonds	6.3

Pre-Refunded Bonds	1.4

Other	5.3

Top Five Fixed Income Issuers



1.	New Jersey (State of) Economic Development Authority	7.6	%

2.	Houston (City of)	6.3

3.	Chicago (City of) (O’Hare International Airport)	6.2

4.	Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport Facilities Improvement Corp.	3.6

5.	New York & New Jersey (States of) Port Authority	3.5


Total Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares		$480.3 million

Total Number of Holdings		368

The Trust’s holdings are subject to change, and there is no assurance that the Trust will continue to hold any particular security.

Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

withdrawn from municipal mutual funds for 29 straight weeks³, but by the end of the third quarter of 2011, the tide had changed. This increase in demand in the third quarter had a positive effect on municipal market performance during the reporting period.

In terms of yield curve positioning, the Trust’s exposure to the long end of the yield curve (20+ years) contributed to Trust returns as municipal yields approached all-time lows³ during the reporting period. Some of our yield curve and duration positioning was obtained through the use of inverse floating rate securities. Inverse floating rate securities are instruments which have an inverse relationship to a referenced interest rate. Inverse floating rate securities can be a more efficient means of managing duration, yield curve exposure and credit exposure. Also, they potentially can enhance yield.

Sector performance was driven by spread tightening between lower rated and higher rated investment grade municipal securities for most of the reporting period, largely a result of declining yields, increased demand and lower tax-exempt issuance. As a result, lower quality sectors outperformed and contributed to Trust performance as we held overweight exposure to these market segments. Our unrated holdings also contributed to relative performance.

At a sector level, our exposure to hospital and industrial development revenue/pollution control revenue bonds contributed to performance for the reporting period. Our state general obligation sector allocation was a detractor from relative performance.

One important factor impacting the return of the Trust relative to its comparative index was the Trust’s use of structural leverage. The Trust uses leverage because we believe that, over time, leveraging provides opportunities for additional income and total return for common shareholders. However, use of leverage also can expose common shareholders to additional volatility. For example, if the prices of securities held by a trust decline, the negative impact of these valuation changes on common share net asset value and common shareholder total return is magnified by the use of leverage. Conversely, leverage may enhance common share returns during periods when the prices of securities held by a trust generally are rising. Leverage made a positive contribution to the performance of the Trust during the reporting period.

During the reporting period, the Trust achieved a leveraged position through the use of tender option bonds and auction rate preferred shares. As of the close of the reporting period, leverage accounted for 39% of the Trust’s total assets. For more information about the Trust’s use of leverage, see the Notes to Financial Statements later in this report.

As stated earlier, the Trust trades at a market price and also has a NAV. For most of the reporting period the Trust traded at a premium to its underlying NAV. The Trust traded close to its NAV from July to October. Following October, the Trust once again traded at a premium for the remainder of the reporting period.

Thank you for investing in Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust and for sharing our long-term investment horizon.

1 Source: Lipper Inc.
2 Source: CBS News
3 Source: The Bond Buyer

The views and opinions expressed in management’s discussion of Trust performance are those of Invesco Advisers, Inc. These views and opinions are subject to change at any time based on factors such as market and economic conditions. These views and opinions may not be relied upon as investment advice or recommendations, or as an offer for a particular security. The information is not a complete analysis of every aspect of any market, country, industry, security or the Trust. Statements of fact are from sources considered reliable, but Invesco Advisers, Inc. makes no representation or warranty as to their completeness or accuracy. Although historical performance is no guarantee of future results, these insights may help you understand our investment management philosophy.

See important Trust and, if applicable, index disclosures later in this report.

Thomas Byron

Portfolio manager, is manager of Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust. He joined Invesco in 2010. Mr. Byron was associated with the Trust’s previous investment adviser or its investment advisory affiliates in an investment capacity from 1981 to 2010 and began managing the Trust in 2009. He earned a B.S. in finance from Marquette University and an M.B.A. in finance from DePaul University.

Robert Stryker

Chartered Financial Analyst, portfolio manager, is manager of Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust. He joined Invesco in 2010. Mr. Stryker was associated with the Trust’s previous investment adviser or its investment advisory affiliates in an investment capacity from 1994 to 2010 and began managing the Trust in 2009. He earned a B.S. in finance from the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Robert Wimmel

Portfolio manager, is manager of Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust. He joined Invesco in 2010. Mr. Wimmel was associated with the Trust’s previous investment adviser or its investment advisory affiliates in an investment capacity from 1996 to 2010 and began managing the Trust in 2001. He earned a B.A. in anthropology from the University of Cincinnati and an M.A. in economics from the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Effective March 1, 2012, after the close of the reporting period, Richard Berry and Stephen Turman left the management team.

Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Additional Information

n			Unless otherwise stated, information presented in this report is as of February 29, 2012, and is based on total net assets applicable to common shares.
n			Unless otherwise noted, all data provided by Invesco.
n			To access your Trust’s reports, visit invesco.com/fundreports.

About indexes used in this report

n			The Barclays Municipal Bond Index is an unmanaged index considered representative of the tax-exempt bond market.
n			The Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index is an unmanaged index considered representative of the US investment-grade, fixed-rate bond market.
n			The Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Index is an unmanaged index that covers the universe of fixed-rate, noninvestment-grade debt.
n			The Barclays U.S. Corporate Investment Grade Index is an unmanaged index considered representative of fixed-rate, investment-grade taxable bond debt.
n			The Barclays U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities Index is an unmanaged index comprising 15- and 30-year fixed-rate securities backed by mortgage pools of Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
n			The Trust is not managed to track the performance of any particular index, including the index(es) defined here, and consequently, the performance of the Trust may deviate significantly from the performance of the index(es).
n			A direct investment cannot be made in an index. Unless otherwise indicated, index results include reinvested dividends, and they do not reflect sales charges. Performance of the peer group, if applicable, reflects trust expenses; performance of a market index does not.

Other information

n			The Chartered Financial Analyst^Ò (CFA^Ò) designation is globally recognized and attests to a charterholder’s success in a rigorous and comprehensive study program in the field of investment management and research analysis.
n			The returns shown in management’s discussion of Trust performance are based on net asset values calculated for shareholder transactions. Generally accepted accounting principles require adjustments to be made to the net assets of the Trust at period end for financial reporting purposes, and as such, the net asset values for shareholder transactions and the returns based on those net asset values may differ from the net asset values and returns reported in the Financial Highlights.



NOT FDIC INSURED	MAY LOSE VALUE	NO BANK GUARANTEE	NYSE Symbol	VMO

Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Dividend Reinvestment Plan

The dividend reinvestment plan (the Plan) offers you a prompt and simple way to reinvest your dividends and capital gains distributions (Distributions) into additional shares of your Trust. Under the Plan, the money you earn from Distributions will be reinvested automatically in more shares of your Trust, allowing you to potentially increase your investment over time.

Plan benefits

n		Add to your account: You may increase the amount of shares in your Trust easily and automatically with the Plan.

n		Low transaction costs: Shareholders who participate in the Plan are able to buy shares at below-market prices when the Trust is trading at a premium to its net asset value (NAV). In addition, transaction costs are low because when new shares are issued by a Trust, there is no fee, and when shares are bought in blocks on the open market, the per share fee is shared among all Participants.
n		Convenience: You will receive a detailed account statement from Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the Agent) which administers the Plan. The statement shows your total Distributions, date of investment, shares acquired, and price per share, as well as the total number of shares in your reinvestment account. You can also access your account via the Internet. To do this, please go to invesco.com/us.
n		Safekeeping: The Agent will hold the shares it has acquired for you in safekeeping.

How to participate in the Plan

If you own shares in your own name, you can participate directly in the Plan. If your shares are held in “street name” – in the name of your brokerage firm, bank, or other financial institution – you must instruct that entity to participate on your behalf. If they are unable to participate on your behalf, you may request that they reregister your shares in your own name so that you may enroll in the Plan.

How to enroll

To enroll in the Plan, please read the Terms and Conditions in the Plan Brochure. You can enroll in the Plan by visiting invesco.com/us, calling toll-free 800 341 2929 or notifying us in writing at Invesco Closed-End Funds, Computershare Trust Company, N.A., P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078. Please include your Trust name and account number and ensure that all shareholders listed on the account sign these written instructions. Your participation in the Plan will begin with the next Distribution payable after the Agent receives your authorization, as long as they receive it before the “record date,” which is generally 10 business days before such Distributions are paid. If your authorization arrives after such record date, your participation in the Plan will begin with the following Distributions.

How the Plan works

If you choose to participate in the Plan, your Distributions will be promptly reinvested for you, automatically increasing your reinvestment shares. If the Trust is trading at a share price that is equal to its NAV, you’ll pay that amount for your reinvested shares. However, if the Trust is trading above or below NAV, the price is determined by one of two ways:


	1.		Premium: If the Trust is trading at a premium – a market price that is higher than its NAV – you’ll pay either the NAV or 95 percent of the market price, whichever is greater. When the Trust trades at a premium, you’ll pay less for your reinvested shares than an investor purchasing shares on the stock exchange. Keep in mind, a portion of your price reduction may be taxable because you are receiving shares at less than market price.

	2.		Discount: If the Trust is trading at a discount – a market price that is lower than NAV – you’ll pay the market price for your reinvested shares.

Costs of the Plan

There is no direct charge to you for reinvesting Distributions because the Plan’s fees are paid by your Trust. If your Trust is trading at or above its NAV, your new shares are issued directly by the Trust and there are no brokerage charges or fees. However, if your Trust is trading at a discount, the shares are purchased on the open market, and you will pay your portion of per share fees. These per share fees are typically less than the standard brokerage charges for individual transactions because shares are purchased for all Participants in blocks, resulting in lower fees for each individual Participant. Any service or per share fees are added to the purchase price. Per share fees include any applicable brokerage commissions the Agent is required to pay.

Tax implications

The automatic reinvestment of Distributions does not relieve you of any income tax that may be due on Distributions. You will receive tax information annually to help you prepare your federal income tax return.
Invesco does not offer tax advice. The tax information contained herein is general and is not exhaustive by nature. It was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under U.S. federal tax laws. Federal and state tax laws are complex and constantly changing. Shareholders should always consult a legal or tax adviser for information concerning their individual situation.

How to withdraw from the Plan

You may withdraw from the Plan at any time by calling 800 341 2929, visiting invesco.com/us or by writing to Invesco Closed-End Funds, Computershare Trust Company, N.A., P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078. Simply indicate that you would like to withdraw from the Plan, and be sure to include your Trust name and account number. Also, ensure that all shareholders listed on the account have signed these written instructions. If you withdraw, you have three options with regard to the shares held in the Plan:

	1.		If you opt to continue to hold your non-certificated whole shares (Investment Plan Book Shares), they will be held by the Agent electronically as Direct Registration Book-Shares (Book-Entry Shares) and fractional shares will be sold at the then-current market price. Proceeds will be sent via check to your address of record after deducting applicable fees.
	2.		If you opt to sell your shares through the Agent, we will sell all full and fractional shares and send the proceeds via check to your address of record after deducting a $2.50 service fee and applicable per share fees. Per share fees include any applicable brokerage commissions the Agent is required to pay.
	3.		You may sell your shares through your financial adviser through the Direct Registration System (DRS). DRS is a service within the securities industry that allows Trust shares to be held in your name in electronic format. You retain full ownership of your shares, without having to hold a share certificate. You should contact your financial adviser to learn more about any restrictions or fees that may apply.

To obtain a complete copy of the Dividend Reinvestment Plan, please call our Client Services department at 800 341 2929 or visit invesco.com/us.


5		Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Schedule of Investments

February 29, 2012


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Municipal Obligations–171.18%
Alabama–1.73%
Bessemer Governmental Utility Services Corp.; Series 2008 A, Ref. Water Supply RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		06/01/39	$	1,975	$	2,089,254

Birmingham (City of) Airport Authority; Series 2010, RB (INS–AGM)^(a)		5.25	%		07/01/30		1,500		1,658,070

Health Care Authority for Baptist Health (The); Series 2009 A, RB^(c)(d)		6.13	%		05/15/12		1,250		1,261,650

Huntsville (City of)–Redstone Village Special Care Facilities Financing Authority; Series 2007, Retirement Facility RB		5.50	%		05/15/12		1,600		1,303,184

Mobile (City of) Industrial Development Board (Mobile Energy Services Co.); Series 1995, Ref. Solid Waste Disposal RB		6.95	%		01/01/20		5		—

Selma (City of) Industrial Development Board; Series 2009 A, Gulf Opportunity Zone RB		6.25	%		11/01/33		1,825		2,005,310

									8,317,468

Alaska–0.67%
Alaska (State of) Industrial Development & Export Authority (Providence Health Services); Series 2011 A, RB^(b)		5.50	%		10/01/41		2,895		3,239,158

Arizona–5.11%
Arizona (State of) Transportation Board;
Series 2008 B, Highway RB^(b)		5.00	%		07/01/25		1,575		1,813,912

Series 2008 B, Highway RB^(b)		5.00	%		07/01/26		2,365		2,709,533

Series 2011 A, Ref. Sub. Highway RB^(b)		5.00	%		07/01/36		2,400		2,687,616

Arizona Capital Facilities Finance Corp. (Arizona State University); Series 2000, Student Housing RB		6.25	%		09/01/32		1,425		1,425,200

Glendale (City of) Industrial Development Authority (Midwestern University);
Series 2010, RB		5.00	%		05/15/35		500		522,385

Series 2010, RB		5.13	%		05/15/40		1,000		1,045,590

Goodyear (City of) McDowell Road Commercial Corridor Improvement District; Series 2007, Special Assessment Improvement RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)		5.25	%		01/01/32		1,775		1,854,555

Maricopa (County of) Industrial Development Authority (Catholic Healthcare West); Series 2009 C, Health Facilities RB^(c)(d)		5.00	%		07/01/14		2,050		2,219,945

Maricopa (County of) Stadium District; Series 2002, Ref. RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)		5.38	%		06/01/19		1,500		1,453,230

Maricopa County Pollution Control Corp. (Arizona Public Service Co.–Palo Verde); Series 2009 B, Ref. PCR^(c)(d)		5.50	%		05/01/12		1,125		1,133,168

Navajo County Pollution Control Corp.;
Series 2009 C, PCR^(c)(d)		5.50	%		06/01/14		575		620,247

Series 2009 E, PCR^(c)(d)		5.75	%		06/01/16		675		771,518

Phoenix (City of) Industrial Development Authority (Career Success Schools);
Series 2009, Education RB		7.00	%		01/01/39		595		587,830

Series 2009, Education RB		7.13	%		01/01/45		570		568,341

Pima (County of) Industrial Development Authority (Global Water Resources, LLC); Series 2007, Water & Wastewater RB^(e)		6.55	%		12/01/37		2,100		2,158,338

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District; Series 2009 A, Electric System RB^(b)		5.00	%		01/01/28		1,930		2,212,571

University Medical Center Corp.; Series 2005, Hospital RB		5.00	%		07/01/35		705		715,667

									24,499,646

California–13.63%
Anaheim (City of) Public Financing Authority (Anaheim Public Improvements); Series 1997 C, Sub. Lease CAB RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(f)		0.00	%		09/01/20		2,630		1,867,694

Bay Area Governments Association (California Redevelopment Agency Pool); Series 2004 A, Tax Allocation RB (INS–SGI)^(a)		5.25	%		09/01/29		2,400		2,258,568

Bay Area Toll Authority (San Francisco Bay Area); Series 2008 F-1, Toll Bridge RB^(b)		5.00	%		04/01/39		4,000		4,284,440

Beverly Hills Unified School District (Election of 2008); Series 2009, Unlimited Tax CAB GO Bonds^(f)		0.00	%		08/01/28		750		398,048

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

6 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

California–(continued)

California (State of) Department of Water Resources (Central Valley);
Series 2008 AE, Water System RB^(b)		5.00	%		12/01/24	$	725	$	860,285

Series 2008 AE, Water System RB^(b)		5.00	%		12/01/25		900		1,065,078

Series 2008 AE, Water System RB^(b)		5.00	%		12/01/26		900		1,062,810

Series 2008 AE, Water System RB^(b)		5.00	%		12/01/27		525		616,387

Series 2008 AE, Water System RB^(b)		5.00	%		12/01/28		900		1,052,685

California (State of) Health Facilities Financing Authority (Catholic Healthcare West); Series 2009 A, RB		6.00	%		07/01/34		1,000		1,161,570

California (State of) Housing Finance Agency;
Series 2008 K, Home Mortgage RB^(e)		5.30	%		08/01/23		2,900		2,916,820

Series 2008 K, Home Mortgage RB^(e)		5.45	%		08/01/28		3,400		3,473,848

California (State of) Pollution Control Financing Authority (Waste Management Inc.); Series 2002 B, Solid Waste Disposal RB^(e)		5.00	%		07/01/27		2,000		2,042,120

California (State of) Public Works Board (Department of Mental Health–Coalinga State Hospital); Series 2004 A, Lease RB		5.00	%		06/01/25		2,000		2,048,340

California (State of) Statewide Communities Development Authority (Adventist Health System/West); Series 2005 A, Health Facility RB		5.00	%		03/01/30		5,000		5,113,950

California (State of) Statewide Communities Development Authority (John Muir Health); Series 2006 A, RB		5.00	%		08/15/28		960		1,038,144

California (State of) Statewide Communities Development Authority (Kaiser Permanente); Series 2009 A, RB		5.00	%		04/01/19		1,250		1,496,675

California (State of);
Series 2004 B-1, VRD Unlimited Tax GO Bonds (LOC–Citibank, N.A.)^(g)(h)		0.09	%		05/01/34		2,000		2,000,000

Series 2009, Various Purpose Unlimited Tax GO Bonds		5.75	%		04/01/31		1,150		1,342,176

Series 2009 A, Ref. Economic Recovery Unlimited Tax GO Bonds		5.25	%		07/01/21		1,800		2,213,964

Series 2010, Various Purpose Unlimited Tax GO Bonds		5.50	%		03/01/40		3,190		3,541,538

Daly City (City of) Housing Development Finance Agency (Franciscan Mobile Home Park Acquisition); Series 2007 C, Ref. Third Tier Mobile Home Park RB		6.50	%		12/15/47		410		407,692

East Bay Municipal Utility District; Series 2010 A, Ref. Sub. Water System RB^(b)		5.00	%		06/01/36		3,800		4,344,464

Morongo Band of Mission Indians (The) (Enterprise Casino); Series 2008 B, RB⁽ⁱ⁾		5.50	%		03/01/18		115		114,854

Palomar Pomerado Health; Series 2009, COP		6.75	%		11/01/39		1,050		1,128,561

Sacramento (County of); Series 2010, Sr. Airport System RB		5.00	%		07/01/40		2,100		2,225,391

San Diego Community College District (Election of 2006); Series 2011, Unlimited Tax GO Bonds^(b)		5.00	%		08/01/36		5,505		6,198,080

San Francisco (City & County of) Airport Commission (San Francisco International Airport);
Series 2008 A-4, Ref. Second Series RB^(c)(e)(j)		6.50	%		05/01/12		1,150		1,161,132

Series 2011 F, Ref. Second Series RB^(e)		5.00	%		05/01/25		710		794,383

Series 2011 F, Ref. Second Series RB^(e)		5.00	%		05/01/26		1,420		1,575,817

San Francisco (City & County of) Public Utilities Commission (Water System Improvement Program); Subseries 2011 A, Water RB^(b)		5.00	%		11/01/36		3,090		3,482,245

Vernon (City of); Series 2009 A, Electric System RB		5.13	%		08/01/21		2,000		2,173,980

									65,461,739

Colorado–5.01%
Colorado (State of) Board of Governors; Series 2012 A, University Enterprise System RB		5.00	%		03/01/41		3,500		3,900,855

Colorado (State of) Educational & Cultural Facilities Authority (National Jewish Federation Bond Program); Series 2004 A-4, VRD RB (LOC – Bank of America N.A.)^(g)(h)		0.13	%		02/01/34		6,815		6,815,000

Colorado (State of) Health Facilities Authority (Catholic Health); Series 2006 C5, RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		09/01/36		4,475		4,708,640

Colorado (State of) Health Facilities Authority (Evangelical Lutheran); Series 2005, Health Facilities RB		5.00	%		06/01/35		2,790		2,804,117

Colorado (State of) Health Facilities Authority (Volunteers of America Care);
Series 2007 A, Health & Residential Care Facilities RB		5.25	%		07/01/27		500		470,335

Series 2007 A, Health & Residential Care Facilities RB		5.30	%		07/01/37		375		329,089

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

7 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Colorado–(continued)

Colorado (State of) Housing & Finance Authority; Series 1997 B-2, MFH Mortgage RB (CEP–FHA)^(e)		5.80	%		10/01/28	$	230	$	230,244

Colorado (State of) Regional Transportation District (Denver Transit Partners Eagle P3);
Series 2010, Private Activity RB		6.50	%		01/15/30		1,300		1,473,901

Series 2010, Private Activity RB		6.00	%		01/15/34		1,050		1,139,029

Montezuma (County of) Hospital District; Series 2007, Ref. RB		5.90	%		10/01/37		895		858,502

Salida (City of) Hospital District; Series 2006, RB		5.25	%		10/01/36		1,416		1,323,337

									24,053,049

Connecticut–1.30%
Connecticut (State of) (Bradley International Airport); Series 2000 A, Special Obligation Parking RB (INS–ACA)^(a)(e)		6.60	%		07/01/24		3,800		3,800,190

Connecticut (State of) Housing Finance Authority; Subseries 2010 D-2, Housing Mortgage Finance Program RB^(e)		5.00	%		05/15/31		1,505		1,577,676

Hamden (Town of) (Whitney Center); Series 2009 B, Entrance Fee Principal Redemption RB		6.13	%		01/01/14		875		875,875

									6,253,741

District of Columbia–4.70%
District of Columbia (Gonzaga College High School); Series 2002, RB (INS–AGM)^(a)		5.25	%		07/01/32		2,500		2,531,550

District of Columbia (Sibley Memorial Hospital);
Series 2009, Hospital RB		6.50	%		10/01/29		700		823,305

Series 2009, Hospital RB		6.38	%		10/01/34		2,215		2,549,266

District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority;
Series 2007 A, Public Utility Sub. Lien RB (INS–AGM)^(a)		5.50	%		10/01/41		8,000		8,893,440

Series 2008 A, Ref. Public Utility Sub. Lien RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		10/01/29		700		790,930

Series 2008 A, Ref. Public Utility Sub. Lien RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		10/01/34		1,425		1,579,370

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority; Series 2002 A, Airport System RB (INS–NATL)^(a)(e)		5.25	%		10/01/32		5,350		5,386,647

									22,554,508

Florida–10.33%
Alachua (County of) (North Florida Retirement Village, Inc.); Series 2007, IDR		5.88	%		11/15/36		1,000		849,410

Brevard (County of) Health Facilities Authority (Buena Vida Estates, Inc.); Series 2008, Residential Care Facility RB		6.75	%		01/01/37		1,200		990,360

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. (High Risk Account); Series 2010 A-1, Sr. Sec. RB		5.25	%		06/01/17		2,090		2,400,073

Escambia (County of) Health Facilities Authority (Florida Health Care Facility Loan Veterans Health Administration Program); Series 2000, RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)		5.95	%		07/01/20		330		344,959

Florida (State of) Department of Transportation;
Series 2008 A, Ref. Turnpike RB^(b)		5.00	%		07/01/26		2,540		2,830,424

Series 2008 A, Ref. Turnpike RB^(b)		5.00	%		07/01/27		2,580		2,861,452

Series 2008 A, Ref. Turnpike RB^(b)		5.00	%		07/01/28		2,805		3,098,543

Series 2008 A, Ref. Turnpike RB^(b)		5.00	%		07/01/32		2,500		2,734,425

Hillsborough (County of) Aviation Authority;
Series 2008 A, RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)(e)		5.38	%		10/01/33		900		957,888

Series 2008 A, RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)(e)		5.50	%		10/01/38		2,000		2,120,460

Hillsborough (County of) Industrial Development Authority (Tampa Electric Co.);
Series 2006, Ref. PCR (INS–AMBAC)^(a)(c)(d)		5.00	%		12/01/12		700		701,344

Series 2007 B, Ref. PCR^(c)(d)		5.15	%		09/01/13		775		824,569

Miami-Dade (County of) (Miami International Airport);
Series 2002, Aviation RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(e)		5.38	%		10/01/27		2,100		2,122,575

Series 2002, Aviation RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(e)		5.38	%		10/01/32		2,500		2,517,400

Miami-Dade (County of) Expressway Authority; Series 2010 A, Ref. Toll System RB		5.00	%		07/01/40		2,000		2,125,220

Miami-Dade (County of) Health Facilities Authority (Miami Children’s Hospital); Series 2010 A, Ref. Hospital RB		6.13	%		08/01/42		595		686,243

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

8 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Florida–(continued)

Midtown Miami Community Development District; Series 2004 A, Special Assessment RB		6.00	%		05/01/24	$	520	$	526,266

Overoaks Community Development District;
Series 2004 A, Capital Improvement Special Assessment RB^(k)		6.13	%		05/01/35		120		1

Series 2010 A-2, Capital Improvement Conv. CAB RB^(f)		0.00	%		05/01/35		125		94,299

Series 2010 B, Capital Improvement Conv. CAB RB^(f)		0.00	%		05/01/17		280		249,530

Palm Beach (County of) Health Facilities Authority (The Waterford); Series 2007, RB		5.88	%		11/15/37		1,000		1,029,410

Palm Beach (County of) Solid Waste Authority;
Series 2009, Improvement RB (INS–BHAC)^(a)(b)		5.50	%		10/01/23		2,400		2,965,824

Series 2011, Ref. RB^(b)		5.00	%		10/01/31		2,340		2,630,862

Putnam (County of) Development Authority (Seminole Electric Cooperative); Series 2007 A, Ref. PCR (INS–AMBAC)^(a)(c)(d)		5.35	%		05/01/18		2,900		3,300,867

Reunion East Community Development District; Series 2005, Special Assessment RB^(k)		5.80	%		05/01/36		490		240,546

Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida; Series 2007 A, Special Obligation RB⁽ⁱ⁾		5.75	%		10/01/22		750		789,405

Seven Oaks Community Development District II; Series 2004 A, Special Assessment RB		5.88	%		05/01/35		835		620,973

South Miami (City of) Health Facilities Authority (Baptist Health South Florida Obligated Group); Series 2007, Hospital RB^(b)		5.00	%		08/15/32		7,510		7,929,734

Sterling Hill Community Development District; Series 2003 A, Capital Improvement Special Assessment RB		6.20	%		05/01/35		750		626,355

Tolomato Community Development District; Series 2007, Special Assessment RB^(k)		6.65	%		05/01/40		1,140		485,982

									49,655,399

Georgia–4.91%
Atlanta (City of) (Beltline);
Series 2009 B, Tax Allocation RB		6.75	%		01/01/20		330		360,281

Series 2009 B, Tax Allocation RB		6.75	%		01/01/20		595		649,597

Series 2009 B, Tax Allocation RB		7.38	%		01/01/31		190		207,795

Atlanta (City of);
Series 2004 C, Airport Passenger Facility Charge & Sub. Lien General RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		01/01/33		5,000		5,275,800

Series 2009 A, Water & Wastewater RB		6.00	%		11/01/27		1,150		1,375,929

Series 2009 A, Water & Wastewater RB		6.00	%		11/01/28		1,250		1,488,712

Series 2009 A, Water & Wastewater RB		6.00	%		11/01/29		1,150		1,365,315

Burke (County of) Development Authority (Oglethorpe Power Vogtle); Series 2011 A, PCR^(c)(d)		2.50	%		03/01/13		1,075		1,095,296

Fulton (County of) Development Authority (Georgia Tech Athletic Association); Series 2012, Ref. RB		5.00	%		10/01/42		1,040		1,110,949

Georgia (State of) Municipal Electric Authority; Series 1997 A, Power RB (INS–NATL)^(a)		6.50	%		01/01/20		7,000		8,375,360

Oconee (County of) Industrial Development Authority (OIIT); Series 2003, RB (INS–SGI)^(a)		5.25	%		07/01/25		1,000		1,048,890

Putnam (County of) Development Authority (Georgia Power Co.); First Series 1996, PCR		5.10	%		06/01/23		1,200		1,231,260

									23,585,184

Hawaii–0.42%
Hawaii (State of); Series 2010 A, Airport System RB		5.00	%		07/01/39		1,875		2,010,169

Idaho–0.83%
Idaho (State of) Health Facilities Authority (St. Luke’s Health System);
Series 2008 A, RB		6.50	%		11/01/23		750		895,755

Series 2008 A, RB		6.75	%		11/01/37		1,000		1,168,180

Idaho (State of) Health Facilities Authority (Valley Vista Care Corp.); Series 2007, Ref. RB		6.13	%		11/15/27		745		719,081

Regents of the University of Idaho; Series 2011, Ref. General RB^(c)(d)		5.25	%		04/01/21		995		1,193,821

									3,976,837

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

9 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Illinois–20.26%
Bartlett (Village of) (Quarry Redevelopment); Series 2007, Ref. Sr. Lien Tax Increment Allocation RB		5.60	%		01/01/23	$	1,250	$	1,152,350

Bolingbrook (Village of); Series 1999 B, Unlimited Tax CAB GO Bonds (INS–NATL)^(a)(f)		0.00	%		01/01/30		1,365		510,592

Bourbonnais (Village of) (Olivet Nazarene University); Series 2010, Industrial Project RB		5.50	%		11/01/40		675		707,657

Chicago (City of) (O’Hare International Airport);
Series 2002 A, Ref. Third Lien General Airport RB (INS–NATL)^(a)(e)		5.38	%		01/01/32		3,150		3,154,126

Series 2005 A, Third Lien General Airport RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.25	%		01/01/24		10,900		11,784,644

Series 2005 A, Third Lien General Airport RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.25	%		01/01/25		10,000		10,774,000

Series 2005 A, Third Lien General Airport RB (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.25	%		01/01/26		3,855		4,134,565

Chicago (City of) Board of Education;
Series 2008 C, Ref. Unlimited Tax GO Bonds (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		12/01/27		2,600		2,838,732

Series 2008 C, Ref. Unlimited Tax GO Bonds (INS–AGM)^(a)		5.00	%		12/01/27		4,000		4,367,280

Series 2011 A, Unlimited Tax GO Bonds^(b)		5.00	%		12/01/41		1,125		1,215,540

Chicago (City of) Transit Authority; Series 2011, Sales Tax Receipts RB^(b)		5.25	%		12/01/36		3,480		3,880,409

Chicago (City of);
Series 2008 A, Unlimited Tax GO Bonds (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.25	%		01/01/25		1,450		1,621,434

Series 2011, COP		7.13	%		05/01/21		220		236,518

Series 2011, COP		7.13	%		05/01/21		725		779,433

Series 2011 A, Sales Tax RB^(b)		5.25	%		01/01/38		1,710		1,920,091

Granite City (City of) (Waste Management, Inc.); Series 2002, Solid Waste Disposal RB^(c)(d)(e)		3.50	%		05/01/13		800		823,432

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Christian Homes, Inc.); Series 2007 A, Ref. RB		5.75	%		05/15/26		2,300		2,317,250

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Kish Health System Obligated Group); Series 2008, Ref. Hospital RB		5.50	%		10/01/22		1,100		1,221,044

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Latin School of Chicago); Series 2005 B, VRD RB (LOC–JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.)^(g)(h)		0.16	%		08/01/35		1,200		1,200,000

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Northwestern Memorial Hospital);
Series 2009 A, RB^(b)		5.38	%		08/15/24		2,200		2,583,086

Series 2009 A, RB^(b)		5.75	%		08/15/30		1,400		1,614,690

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (OSF Healthcare System); Series 2007 A, RB		5.75	%		11/15/37		2,500		2,691,500

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Park Place of Elmhurst); Series 2010 D-2, TEMPS-65^sm RB		7.00	%		11/15/15		1,600		1,600,720

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Riverside Health System); Series 2009, RB		6.25	%		11/15/35		1,150		1,292,151

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Roosevelt University); Series 2007, RB		5.50	%		04/01/37		1,000		1,022,170

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Rush University Medical Center Obligated Group); Series 2009 A, RB		7.25	%		11/01/38		1,800		2,199,042

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Sherman Health System); Series 2007 A, RB		5.50	%		08/01/37		5,500		5,591,135

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Swedish American Hospital); Series 2004, RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)		5.00	%		11/15/31		1,570		1,580,754

Illinois (State of) Finance Authority (Swedish Covenant Hospital); Series 2010 A, Ref. RB		6.00	%		08/15/38		1,350		1,483,744

Illinois (State of) Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority (McCormick Place Expansion);
Series 2002 A, RB (INS–NATL)^(a)		5.25	%		06/15/42		6,000		6,124,500

Series 2010 A, RB		5.50	%		06/15/50		2,100		2,274,867

Peoria (County of); Series 2011, Unlimited Tax GO Bonds^(b)		5.00	%		12/15/41		2,250		2,412,720

Railsplitter Tobacco Settlement Authority; Series 2010, RB		5.50	%		06/01/23		3,025		3,490,578

Regional Transportation Authority; Series 1994 B, RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)		8.00	%		06/01/17		5,000		6,241,900

Will (County of) & Kankakee (City of) Regional Development Authority (Senior Estates Supportive Living); Series 2007, MFH RB^(e)		7.00	%		12/01/42		470		471,321

									97,313,975

Indiana–1.60%
Crown Point (City of) (Wittenberg Village); Series 2009 C-1, TEMPS-80^sm Economic Development RB		7.25	%		11/15/14		195		195,351

Indiana (State of) Finance Authority (CWA Authority); Series 2011 B, Second Lien Wastewater Utility RB		5.25	%		10/01/31		2,130		2,388,007

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

10 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Indiana–(continued)

Indiana (State of) Finance Authority (Deaconess Hospital Obligated Group); Series 2009 A, Hospital RB		6.75	%		03/01/39	$	1,360	$	1,579,776

Indiana (State of) Finance Authority (Indianapolis Power & Light Co.); Series 2009 A, Ref. Environmental Facilities RB		4.90	%		01/01/16		1,525		1,684,927

Indiana (State of) Health Facility Financing Authority (Columbus Regional Hospital); Series 1993, Ref. RB (INS–AGM)^(a)		7.00	%		08/15/15		1,260		1,382,686

Vigo (County of) Hospital Authority (Union Hospital, Inc.); Series 2007, RB⁽ⁱ⁾		5.75	%		09/01/42		500		481,920

									7,712,667

Iowa–0.40%
Des Moines (City of); Series 2000 A, Public Parking System RB (INS–NATL)^(a)		5.75	%		06/01/17		1,890		1,897,711

Kansas–0.57%
Kansas (State of) Development Finance Authority (Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Obligated Group); Series 2009 C, Hospital RB^(b)		5.75	%		11/15/38		2,400		2,745,480

Kentucky–3.93%
Breckinridge (County of) (Kentucky Association of Counties Leasing Trust); Series 2001 A, VRD Lease Program RB (LOC–U.S. Bank, N.A.)^(g)(h)		0.12	%		02/01/31		6,485		6,485,000

Kentucky (State of) Economic Development Finance Authority (Louisville Arena Authority, Inc.); Subseries 2008 A-1, RB (INS–AGC)^(a)		5.75	%		12/01/28		1,400		1,560,944

Kentucky (State of) Economic Development Finance Authority (Owensboro Medical Health System, Inc.);
Series 2010 A, Hospital RB		6.38	%		06/01/40		1,125		1,264,477

Series 2010 A, Hospital RB		6.50	%		03/01/45		1,500		1,698,750

Kentucky (State of) Property & Building Commission (No. 93);
Series 2009, Ref. RB (INS–AGC)^(a)		5.25	%		02/01/24		1,510		1,759,996

Series 2009, Ref. RB (INS–AGC)^(a)		5.25	%		02/01/25		1,710		1,981,377

Louisville (City of) & Jefferson (County of) Metropolitan Government (Norton Healthcare, Inc.); Series 2006, Health System RB		5.25	%		10/01/36		4,000		4,125,480

									18,876,024

Louisiana–1.44%
Lakeshore Villages Master Community Development District; Series 2007, Special Assessment RB^(k)		5.25	%		07/01/17		989		395,541

Louisiana (State of) Public Facilities Authority (Entergy Louisiana LLC); Series 2010, RB		5.00	%		06/01/30		1,050		1,098,710

Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.; Series 2009 C-2, Assessment RB (INS–AGC)^(a)		6.75	%		06/01/26		1,900		2,281,786

Rapides (Parish of) Finance Authority (Cleco Power LLC); Series 2007, RB^(c)(d)(e)		5.25	%		03/01/13		1,850		1,911,623

St. John the Baptist (Parish of) (Marathon Oil Corp.); Series 2007 A, RB		5.13	%		06/01/37		1,200		1,244,280

									6,931,940

Maryland–0.76%
Maryland (State of) Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority (Mercy Medical Center); Series 2007 A, RB		5.50	%		07/01/42		1,915		1,944,453

Maryland Economic Development Corp. (Terminal); Series 2010 B, RB		5.75	%		06/01/35		940		995,403

Maryland Economic Development Corp. (Transportation Facilities); Series 2010 A, RB		5.38	%		06/01/25		665		690,942

									3,630,798

Massachusetts–3.67%
Massachusetts (State of) Bay Transportation Authority; Series 1993 A, Ref. General Transportation Systems RB		5.50	%		03/01/12		385		385,116

Massachusetts (State of) Development Finance Agency (Berklee College of Music); Series 2007 A, RB		5.00	%		10/01/32		1,650		1,774,162

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

11 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Massachusetts–(continued)

Massachusetts (State of) Development Finance Agency (Linden Ponds, Inc. Facility);
Series 2011 A-1, RB		6.25	%		11/15/39	$	282	$	207,575

Series 2011 A-1, RB		6.25	%		11/15/46		337		242,418

Series 2011 A-2, RB		5.50	%		11/15/46		33		20,246

Series 2011 B, CAB RB^(f)		0.00	%		11/15/56		164		867

Massachusetts (State of) Development Finance Agency (Partners Healthcare); Series 2012 L, RB		5.00	%		07/01/36		4,025		4,419,812

Massachusetts (State of) Development Finance Agency (SEMASS System); Series 2001 A, Resource Recovery RB (INS–NATL)^(a)		5.63	%		01/01/16		3,000		3,037,380

Massachusetts (State of) Development Finance Agency (The Groves in Lincoln); Series 2009 B-2, Senior Living Facility RB		6.25	%		06/01/14		615		615,018

Massachusetts (State of) Development Finance Agency (Tufts Medical Center); Series 2011 I, RB		7.25	%		01/01/32		750		895,057

Massachusetts (State of) Development Finance Agency (Tufts University); Series 1995 G, VRD RB^(h)		0.12	%		02/15/26		1,700		1,700,000

Massachusetts (State of) School Building Authority; Series 2011 B, Sr. Dedicated Sales Tax RB^(b)		5.00	%		10/15/35		3,780		4,331,389

									17,629,040

Michigan–0.81%
Detroit (City of); Series 2001 C-1, Ref. Sr. Lien Sewage Disposal System RB (INS–AGM)^(a)		7.00	%		07/01/27		2,100		2,594,151

Kent (County of) Hospital Finance Authority (Spectrum Health System);
Series 2008 A, RB^(c)(d)		5.25	%		01/15/14		800		865,128

Series 2008 A, RB^(c)(d)		5.50	%		01/15/15		400		451,540

									3,910,819

Minnesota–2.18%
Chaska (City of); Series 2000 A, Electric RB		6.10	%		10/01/30		10		10,037

Minneapolis (City of) & St. Paul (City of) Housing & Redevelopment Authority (Allina Health System); Series 2009 B-1, VRD Health Care System RB (LOC–JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.)^(g)(h)		0.13	%		11/15/35		7,100		7,100,000

Minneapolis (City of) (Fairview Health Services);
Series 2008 A, Health Care System RB		6.38	%		11/15/23		1,700		2,023,663

Series 2008 A, Health Care System RB		6.63	%		11/15/28		1,150		1,356,816

									10,490,516

Mississippi–0.81%
Mississippi Business Finance Corp. (Chevron USA Inc.); Series 2009 F, VRD Gulf Opportunity Zone RB^(h)		0.13	%		12/01/30		3,900		3,900,000

Missouri–2.46%
Cape Girardeau (County of) Industrial Development Authority (Southeast Missouri Hospital Association);
Series 2002, Health Facilities RB^(c)(j)		5.50	%		06/01/12		1,800		1,824,498

Series 2002, Health Facilities RB		5.50	%		06/01/22		350		351,397

Kansas City (City of) Industrial Development Authority (Downtown Redevelopment District);
Series 2011 A, Ref. RB		5.50	%		09/01/27		700		821,345

Series 2011 A, Ref. RB		5.50	%		09/01/28		1,400		1,635,242

Kirkwood (City of) Industrial Development Authority (Aberdeen Heights); Series 2010 C-1, TEMPS-75^sm Retirement Community RB		7.50	%		11/15/16		1,500		1,518,780

Maryland Heights (City of) (South Heights Redevelopment); Series 2007 A, Ref. Tax Increment Allocation RB		5.50	%		09/01/18		635		643,998

Missouri (State of) Health & Educational Facilities Authority (Lutheran Senior Services);
Series 2005 A, Senior Living Facilities RB		5.38	%		02/01/35		1,375		1,385,271

Series 2010, Senior Living Facilities RB		5.50	%		02/01/42		950		967,347

St. Louis (City of) Industrial Development Authority (Loughborough Commons Redevelopment); Series 2007, Ref. Community Improvement District Tax Increment Allocation RB		5.75	%		11/01/27		575		566,202

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

12 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Missouri–(continued)

St. Louis (County of) Industrial Development Authority (St. Andrew’s Resources for Seniors);
Series 2007 A, Senior Living Facilities RB		6.38	%		12/01/30	$	615	$	624,729

Series 2007 A, Senior Living Facilities RB		6.38	%		12/01/41		1,450		1,461,049

									11,799,858

Nebraska–0.80%
Omaha (City of) Public Power District; Series 2011 B, RB^(b)		5.00	%		02/01/36		3,390		3,844,802

Nevada–2.17%
Clark (County of) (Southwest Gas Corp.); Series 2004 A, IDR (INS–AMBAC)^(a)(e)		5.25	%		07/01/34		6,000		6,022,200

Reno (City of) (Renown Regional Medical Center); Series 2007 A, Hospital RB		5.25	%		06/01/37		4,250		4,384,343

									10,406,543

New Hampshire–0.17%
New Hampshire (State of) Business Finance Authority (Pennichuck Water Works, Inc.); Series 1997, Water Facility RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)(e)		6.30	%		05/01/22		800		802,072

New Jersey–9.02%
New Jersey (State of) Economic Development Authority (Provident Group-Montclair Properties LLC-Montclair State University Student Housing); Series 2010 A, RB		5.88	%		06/01/42		1,500		1,616,130

New Jersey (State of) Economic Development Authority; Series 1992, RB (INS–NATL)^(a)		5.90	%		03/15/21		30,000		36,689,400

New Jersey (State of) Health Care Facilities Financing Authority (Virtua Health); Series 2009 B, VRD RB (LOC–JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.)^(g)(h)		0.10	%		07/01/43		1,000		1,000,000

New Jersey (State of) Turnpike Authority; Series 2009 A, VRD RB (LOC–JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.)^(g)(h)		0.12	%		01/01/24		4,000		4,000,000

									43,305,530

New Mexico–0.96%
Farmington (City of) (Public Service Co. of New Mexico San Juan); Series 2010 C, Ref. PCR		5.90	%		06/01/40		1,900		1,990,117

New Mexico (State of) Hospital Equipment Loan Council (Presbyterian Health Care Services); Series 2008 A, Hospital RB^(b)		6.38	%		08/01/32		1,250		1,463,288

University of New Mexico; Series 2002 A, Ref. Sub. Lien RB^(c)(j)		5.25	%		06/01/12		1,125		1,137,173

									4,590,578

New York–12.23%
Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corp. (Barclays Center);
Series 2009, PILOT RB		6.25	%		07/15/40		1,270		1,372,235

Series 2009, PILOT RB		6.38	%		07/15/43		530		574,070

New York & New Jersey (States of) Port Authority (JFK International Air Terminal LLC); Series 2010 8, Special Obligation RB		6.00	%		12/01/36		1,950		2,189,596

New York & New Jersey (States of) Port Authority; One Hundred Forty-Fourth Series 2006, Consolidated RB^(b)		5.00	%		10/01/35		15,000		16,996,500

New York (City of) Industrial Development Agency (7 World Trade Center, LLC); Series 2005 B, Liberty RB		6.75	%		03/01/15		2,000		2,005,280

New York (City of) Industrial Development Agency (YMCA of Greater New York); Series 1997, Civic Facility RB		5.80	%		08/01/16		795		797,568

New York (City of) Municipal Water Finance Authority; Series 2010 FF, Second General Resolution Water & Sewer System RB		5.00	%		06/15/31		6,000		6,858,540

New York (City of) Transitional Finance Authority; Series 2009 S-3, Building Aid RB^(b)		5.25	%		01/15/39		1,800		1,980,018

New York (City of);
Series 2012 F, Ref. Unlimited Tax GO Bonds		5.00	%		08/01/31		1,200		1,389,552

Subseries 2008 I-1, Unlimited Tax GO Bonds^(b)		5.00	%		02/01/26		5,500		6,237,220

New York (State of) Dormitory Authority (General Purpose); Series 2011 A, State Personal Income Tax RB^(b)		5.00	%		03/15/30		2,040		2,375,988

New York (State of) Dormitory Authority (Upstate Community Colleges); Series 2004 B, RB		5.25	%		07/01/20		1,500		1,617,615

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

13 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

New York–(continued)

New York (State of) Dormitory Authority;
Series 1993 A, Second General City University System Consolidated RB		5.75	%		07/01/13	$	1,375	$	1,425,944

Series 1995 A, City University System Consolidated RB		5.63	%		07/01/16		3,100		3,505,821

New York (State of) Thruway Authority (Transportation);
Series 2009 A, Personal Income Tax RB^(b)		5.00	%		03/15/26		1,700		1,987,640

Series 2009 A, Personal Income Tax RB^(b)		5.00	%		03/15/27		1,900		2,212,379

Series 2009 A, Personal Income Tax RB^(b)		5.00	%		03/15/28		1,000		1,161,600

New York (State of) Thruway Authority; Series 2011 A-1, Second General Highway & Bridge Trust Fund RB^(b)		5.00	%		04/01/29		3,465		4,037,522

									58,725,088

North Carolina–1.83%
North Carolina (State of) Eastern Municipal Power Agency; Series 2009 B, Power System RB		5.00	%		01/01/26		3,950		4,431,110

North Carolina (State of) Medical Care Commission (Southminster); Series 2007 A, First Mortgage Retirement Facilities RB		5.75	%		10/01/37		705		627,429

North Carolina (State of) Turnpike Authority; Series 2011, Monroe Connector System State Appropriation RB^(b)		5.00	%		07/01/41		3,320		3,731,946

									8,790,485

North Dakota–0.22%
McLean (County of) (Great River Energy); Series 2010 B, Solid Waste Facilities RB		5.15	%		07/01/40		1,000		1,076,770

Ohio–8.80%
Allen (County of) (Catholic Healthcare Partners); Series 2008 B, VRD Hospital Facilities RB (LOC–JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.)^(g)(h)		0.10	%		10/01/31		8,235		8,235,000

Cuyahoga (County of) (Eliza Jennings Senior Care Network); Series 2007 A, Health Care & Independent Living Facilities RB		5.75	%		05/15/27		400		395,372

Franklin (County of) (Ohio Health Corp.); Series 2011 A, Hospital Facilities RB^(b)		5.00	%		11/15/36		1,675		1,796,739

Franklin (County of) (OhioHealth Corp.); Series 2011 A, Hospital Facilities RB^(b)		5.00	%		11/15/41		1,500		1,601,580

Lorain (County of) (Catholic Healthcare Partners);
Series 2002, Hospital Facilities RB		5.38	%		10/01/30		500		504,860

Series 2003 C-1, Ref. Hospital Facilities RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		04/01/24		3,000		3,326,430

Series 2006 A, Hospital Facilities RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		02/01/24		2,750		3,050,410

Series 2006 B, Hospital Facilities RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		02/01/24		2,775		3,078,252

Lucas (County of) (ProMedica Healthcare); Series 2011 A, Hospital RB		5.75	%		11/15/31		1,000		1,177,970

Montgomery (County of) (Catholic Health Initiatives); Series 2006 C-1, RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		10/01/41		1,625		1,698,905

Montgomery (County of) (Miami Valley Hospital);
Series 2009 A, RB		6.00	%		11/15/28		1,475		1,577,586

Series 2009 A, RB		6.25	%		11/15/39		925		984,394

Ohio (State of) Air Quality Development Authority (FirstEnergy Generation Corp.);
Series 2006, Ref. PCR^(c)(d)		2.25	%		06/03/13		3,000		3,020,430

Series 2009 C, Ref. PCR		5.63	%		06/01/18		2,600		2,981,550

Ohio (State of) Air Quality Development Authority (Ohio Power Co. Galvin); Series 2010 A, Ref. RB^(c)(d)(e)		2.88	%		08/01/14		2,000		2,044,500

Ohio (State of) Higher Educational Facility Commission (Summa Health System); Series 2010, Hospital Facilities RB		5.75	%		11/15/35		1,480		1,600,975

Ohio (State of) Higher Educational Facility Commission (University Hospitals Health System, Inc.); Series 2009 A, Hospital RB		6.75	%		01/15/39		1,900		2,023,823

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

14 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Ohio–(continued)

Ohio (State of) Housing Finance Agency (Mortgage-Backed Securities Program);
Series 2008 D, Residential Mortgage RB (CEP–GNMA)^(b)(e)		5.30	%		09/01/28	$	535	$	562,643

Series 2008 D, Residential Mortgage RB (CEP–GNMA)^(b)(e)		5.40	%		03/01/33		392		412,405

Series 2008 F, Residential Mortgage RB (CEP–GNMA)^(b)		5.50	%		09/01/39		1,071		1,121,648

Ohio (State of) Water Development Authority (FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp.); Series 2009 A, Ref. PCR^(c)(d)		5.88	%		06/01/16		950		1,082,098

									42,277,570

Oklahoma–0.35%
McAlester (City of) Public Works Authority; Series 2002, Utility System CAB RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(f)		0.00	%		02/01/34		3,970		1,664,383

Pennsylvania–3.02%
Delaware River Port Authority; Series 2010 D, RB		5.00	%		01/01/35		950		1,020,281

Franklin (County of) Industrial Development Authority (Chambersburg Hospital); Series 2010, RB		5.38	%		07/01/42		1,800		1,892,412

Pennsylvania (State of) Turnpike Commission;
Subseries 2010 B-2, Sub. Conv. CAB RB^(f)		0.00	%		12/01/28		2,100		1,988,952

Subseries 2010 B-2, Sub. Conv. CAB RB^(f)		0.00	%		12/01/34		1,300		1,194,232

Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority;
Series 2003 A, Airport System RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)(e)		5.38	%		01/01/21		3,000		3,006,720

Series 2003 A, Airport System RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)(e)		5.38	%		01/01/22		5,415		5,422,689

									14,525,286

Puerto Rico–3.38%
Puerto Rico (Commonwealth of) Aqueduct & Sewer Authority;
Series 2012 A, Sr. Lien RB		5.00	%		07/01/33		1,670		1,673,357

Series 2012 A, Sr. Lien RB		5.25	%		07/01/42		1,150		1,151,644

Series 2012 A, Sr. Lien RB		6.00	%		07/01/47		920		992,340

Puerto Rico (Commonwealth of) Electric Power Authority;
Series 2010 CCC, RB		5.25	%		07/01/27		2,100		2,327,640

Series 2010 XX, RB		5.25	%		07/01/40		1,900		1,997,375

Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp.;
First Subseries 2010 A, RB		5.38	%		08/01/39		1,900		2,056,389

First Subseries 2010 A, RB		5.50	%		08/01/42		2,100		2,288,937

First Subseries 2010 C, RB		5.25	%		08/01/41		3,500		3,769,885

									16,257,567

South Carolina–5.31%
Charleston Educational Excellence Finance Corp. (Charleston County School District);
Series 2005, Installment Purchase RB^(b)		5.25	%		12/01/25		2,500		2,818,975

Series 2005, Installment Purchase RB^(b)		5.25	%		12/01/26		7,500		8,456,925

South Carolina (State of) Jobs-Economic Development Authority (Electric & Gas Co.);
Series 2002 A, IDR (INS–AMBAC)^(a)		5.20	%		11/01/27		5,000		5,121,250

Series 2002 B, IDR (INS–AMBAC)^(a)(e)		5.45	%		11/01/32		3,750		3,777,938

South Carolina (State of) Jobs-Economic Development Authority (Palmetto Health Alliance); Series 2003 A, Ref. Hospital Facilities RB		6.25	%		08/01/31		1,840		1,944,438

South Carolina (State of) Jobs-Economic Development Authority (The Woodlands at Furman);
Series 2012, Ref. RB		6.00	%		11/15/32		517		276,463

Series 2012, Ref. Sub. CAB RB^(f)		0.00	%		11/15/47		222		842

South Carolina (State of) Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper); Series 2010 B, Ref. RB^(b)		5.00	%		01/01/33		2,775		3,126,038

									25,522,869

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

15 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Tennessee–1.56%
Chattanooga (City of) Health, Educational & Housing Facility Board (Community Development Financial Institution Phase I LLC); Series 2005 A, Ref. Sr. RB		5.13	%		10/01/35	$	1,750	$	1,715,875

Elizabethton (City of) Health & Educational Facilities Board; Series 2000 B, Ref. & Improvement First Mortgage Hospital RB^(c)(j)		8.00	%		07/01/12		2,000		2,101,560

Johnson City (City of) Health & Educational Facilities Board (Mountain States Health Alliance); Series 2000 A, Ref. First Mortgage Hospital RB^(c)(j)		7.50	%		07/01/12		1,000		1,049,180

Shelby (County of) Health, Educational & Housing Facilities Board (Methodist Healthcare); Series 2004 B, RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.25	%		09/01/27		2,400		2,636,352

									7,502,967

Texas–23.17%
Alliance Airport Authority, Inc. (Federal Express Corp.); Series 2006, Ref. Special Facilities RB^(e)		4.85	%		04/01/21		1,450		1,554,893

Dallas (City of) (Civic Center Convention Complex);
Series 2009, Ref. & Improvement RB (INS–AGC)^(a)		5.00	%		08/15/18		1,150		1,346,190

Series 2009, Ref. & Improvement RB (INS–AGC)^(a)		5.00	%		08/15/19		1,350		1,588,464

Dallas (County of) Flood Control District No. 1; Series 2002, Ref. Unlimited Tax GO Bonds		6.75	%		04/01/16		510		532,619

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Facilities Improvement Corp.;
Series 2000 A, Joint RB (INS–NATL)^(a)(e)		5.75	%		11/01/30		2,735		2,740,497

Series 2001 A, Ref. & Improvement RB (INS–BHAC)^(a)(e)		5.50	%		11/01/31		4,475		4,480,907

Series 2002 C, Joint Improvement RB (INS–NATL)^(a)(e)		5.75	%		11/01/18		550		552,052

Series 2002 C, Joint Improvement RB (INS–NATL)^(a)(e)		6.00	%		11/01/23		1,040		1,044,108

Series 2003 A, Joint RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(e)		5.50	%		11/01/21		8,000		8,377,840

El Paso (County of) Hospital District; Series 2008 A, Limited Tax GO Bonds (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		08/15/37		4,850		5,210,743

Harris (County of); Series 2009 A, Sr. Lien Toll Road RB^(b)		5.00	%		08/15/32		1,930		2,191,129

Harris County Health Facilities Development Corp. (Memorial Hermann Healthcare System); Series 2008 B, Ref. RB		7.25	%		12/01/35		750		897,645

Harris County Industrial Development Corp. (Deer Park Refining Limited Partnership); Series 2006, Solid Waste Disposal RB		5.00	%		02/01/23		950		1,033,353

Houston (City of);
Series 2000 A, Sub. Lien Airport System RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(e)		5.63	%		07/01/30		750		750,907

Series 2002, Sub. Lien Airport System RB^(c)(j)		5.50	%		07/01/12		2,000		2,036,400

Series 2002 A, Sub. Lien Airport System RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(e)		5.13	%		07/01/32		10,000		10,038,000

Series 2007 A, Ref. First Lien Combined Utility System RB (INS–AGM)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		11/15/36		7,825		8,450,531

Series 2011 D, First Lien Combined Utility System RB^(b)		5.00	%		11/15/33		7,680		8,849,971

Judson Independent School District; Series 2008, School Building Unlimited Tax GO Bonds (INS–AGC)^(a)(b)		5.00	%		02/01/37		3,030		3,200,801

Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA Transmissions Services Corp.); Series 2011 A, Ref. RB		5.00	%		05/15/41		1,250		1,344,950

Lower Colorado River Authority; Series 2010 A, Ref. RB		5.00	%		05/15/40		1,500		1,619,820

Matagorda (County of) Navigation District No. 1 (CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC); Series 2004, Ref. Collateralized RB^(d)		5.60	%		03/01/27		1,000		1,044,900

North Central Texas Health Facility Development Corp. (Children’s Medical Center of Dallas); Series 2002, Hospital RB (INS–AMBAC)^(a)		5.25	%		08/15/32		5,900		6,000,772

North Texas Tollway Authority;
Series 2008 B, Ref. First Tier System RB		6.00	%		01/01/26		1,000		1,194,710

Series 2008 B, Ref. First Tier System RB		6.00	%		01/01/27		1,000		1,190,150

Series 2008 B, Ref. First Tier System RB		5.63	%		01/01/28		1,000		1,120,540

Series 2008 F, Ref. Second Tier System RB		5.75	%		01/01/33		2,650		2,882,723

Series 2008 L-2, Ref. First Tier System RB^(c)(d)		6.00	%		01/01/13		1,350		1,411,074

Series 2011 A, Special Projects System RB^(b)		5.50	%		09/01/36		2,670		3,092,795

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

16 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Texas–(continued)

Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp. (Buckingham Senior Living Community, Inc.);
Series 2007, Retirement Facility RB		5.63	%		11/15/27	$	1,000	$	1,010,940

Series 2007, Retirement Facility RB		5.75	%		11/15/37		500		497,290

Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp. (Buckner Retirement Services, Inc.); Series 2007, Retirement Facility RB		5.25	%		11/15/37		4,000		4,045,880

Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp. (C.C. Young Memorial Home);
Series 2007, Retirement Facility RB		5.75	%		02/15/25		400		371,168

Series 2009 B-2, Retirement Facility RB		6.50	%		02/15/14		635		635,394

Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp. (CHRISTUS Health); Series 2008 A, Ref. RB (INS–AGC)^(a)		6.25	%		07/01/28		3,000		3,518,640

Texas (State of) Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority (Waste Management); Series 2006 D, RB^(e)		4.55	%		04/01/12		1,000		1,001,740

Texas (State of) Transportation Commission; Series 2008, Mobility Fund Unlimited Tax GO Bonds^(b)		5.00	%		04/01/28		5,400		6,296,616

Texas A&M University System Board of Regents; Series 2009 A, Financing System RB		5.00	%		05/15/29		3,000		3,454,560

Texas Private Activity Bond Surface Transportation Corp. (NTE Mobility Partners LLC North Tarrant Express Management Lanes); Series 2009, Sr. Lien RB		6.88	%		12/31/39		1,430		1,624,780

Tyler Health Facilities Development Corp. (East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System); Series 2007 A, Ref. & Improvement Hospital RB		5.38	%		11/01/37		540		544,288

Waco Educational Finance Corp. (Baylor University); Series 2012, RB		5.00	%		03/01/43		2,250		2,519,707

									111,300,487

Utah–0.65%
Mountain Regional Water Special Service District; Series 2003, Ref. Water RB (INS–NATL)^(a)		5.00	%		12/15/33		2,380		2,420,889

Utah (State of) Charter School Finance Authority (Summit Academy); Series 2007 A, Charter School RB		5.80	%		06/15/38		730		681,557

									3,102,446

Virgin Islands–0.38%
Virgin Islands (Government of) Public Finance Authority (Matching Fund Loan Note); Series 2010 A, Sr. Lien RB		5.00	%		10/01/25		1,700		1,839,179

Virginia–0.63%
Peninsula Town Center Community Development Authority; Series 2007, Special Obligation RB		6.35	%		09/01/28		743		711,549

Virginia (State of) Small Business Financing Authority (Carilion Clinic Obligated Group); Series 2008 A, VRD Hospital RB^(h)		0.12	%		07/01/42		1,200		1,200,000

White Oak Village Shops Community Development Authority; Series 2007, Special Assessment RB		5.30	%		03/01/17		1,045		1,108,013

									3,019,562

Washington–5.37%
Bellevue (City of) Convention Center Authority (Compound Interest); Series 1994, Ref. Special Obligation RB (INS–NATL)^(a)(f)		0.00	%		02/01/25		9,850		6,197,324

Energy Northwest (Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No. 3); Series 1993 C, Ref. RB (INS–NATL)^(a)(f)		0.00	%		07/01/14		5,125		5,028,445

Kalispel Tribe of Indians; Series 2008, RB		6.63	%		01/01/28		1,250		1,087,112

Seattle (Port of); Series 2012 A, Ref. Intermediate Lien RB		5.00	%		08/01/30		1,900		2,189,180

Spokane (City of) Public Facilities District; Series 2003, Hotel, Motel & Sales Use Tax RB (INS–NATL)^(a)		5.25	%		09/01/33		3,000		3,076,860

Washington (State of) (SR 520 Corridor Program–Toll Revenue);
Series 2011 C, Motor Vehicle Fuel Unlimited Tax GO Bonds^(b)		5.00	%		06/01/33		1,450		1,672,024

Series 2011 C, Motor Vehicle Fuel Unlimited Tax GO Bonds^(b)		5.00	%		06/01/41		585		654,083

Washington (State of) Health Care Facilities Authority (Catholic Health Initiatives); Series 2011 A, RB^(b)		5.00	%		02/01/41		2,130		2,274,435

Washington (State of) Health Care Facilities Authority (Swedish Health Services); Series 2011 A, RB		6.25	%		11/15/41		950		1,084,549

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

17 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


						Principal
	Interest			Maturity		Amount
	Rate			Date		(000)		Value

Washington–(continued)

Washington (State of) Higher Education Facilities Authority (Whitworth University); Series 2012, RB		5.25	%		10/01/37	$	1,000	$	1,033,590

Washington (State of) Housing Finance Commission (Wesley Homes); Series 2008, Non-Profit CR RB⁽ⁱ⁾		6.00	%		01/01/27		1,440		1,471,090

									25,768,692

West Virginia–1.16%
Ohio (County of) (Fort Henry Centre Financing District); Series 2007 A, Tax Increment Allocation RB		5.85	%		06/01/34		500		507,615

Pleasants (County of) Commission (Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC Pleasants Station); Series 2007 F, Ref. PCR		5.25	%		10/15/37		855		885,447

West Virginia (State of) Hospital Finance Authority (Thomas Health System);
Series 2008, RB		6.00	%		10/01/20		1,000		1,011,310

Series 2008, RB		6.25	%		10/01/23		1,025		1,037,320

West Virginia (State of) Hospital Finance Authority (West Virginia United Health System Obligated Group);
Series 2009 C, Ref. & Improvement RB		5.50	%		06/01/34		1,000		1,086,050

Series 2009 C, Ref. & Improvement RB		5.50	%		06/01/39		955		1,024,171

									5,551,913

Wisconsin–2.00%
Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District; Series 1998 A, Ref. Sales Tax RB^(j)		5.50	%		12/15/20		1,500		1,936,665

Superior (City of) (Superior Water, Light & Power Co.);
Series 2007 A, Ref. Collateralized Utility RB^(e)		5.38	%		11/01/21		425		462,689

Series 2007 B, Collateralized Utility RB^(e)		5.75	%		11/01/37		385		402,945

Wisconsin (State of) Health & Educational Facilities Authority (Aurora Health Care, Inc.); Series 2009 B, RB^(c)(d)		4.75	%		08/15/14		1,000		1,073,150

Wisconsin (State of) Health & Educational Facilities Authority (Prohealth Care, Inc. Obligated Group); Series 2009, RB		6.63	%		02/15/39		1,270		1,444,752

Wisconsin (State of) Housing & Economic Development Authority;
Series 2008 A, Home Ownership RB^(b)(e)		5.30	%		09/01/23		2,400		2,555,856

Series 2008 A, Home Ownership RB^(b)(e)		5.50	%		09/01/28		575		604,337

Wisconsin (State of); Series 2009 A, General Fund Annual Appropriation RB		5.38	%		05/01/25		950		1,119,537

									9,599,931

Wyoming–0.47%
Sweetwater (County of) (FMC Corp.); Series 2005, Ref. Solid Waste Disposal RB^(e)		5.60	%		12/01/35		1,000		1,012,990

Sweetwater (County of) (Idaho Power Co.); Series 2006, Ref. PCR		5.25	%		07/15/26		1,100		1,260,307

									2,273,297

TOTAL INVESTMENTS^(l)–171.18% (Cost $765,513,706)									822,193,743

FLOATING RATE NOTE OBLIGATIONS–(29.35%)
Notes with interest rates ranging from 0.13% to 0.33% at 02/29/12 and contractual maturities of collateral ranging from 09/01/23 to 12/15/41 (See Note 1K)^(m)									(140,980,000	)

OTHER ASSETS LESS LIABILITIES–(2.90%)									(13,922,502	)

PREFERRED SHARES–(38.93%)									(187,000,000	)

NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHARES–100.00%								$	480,291,241

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

18 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Investment Abbreviations:


ACA		– ACA Financial Guaranty Corp.
AGC		– Assured Guaranty Corp.
AGM		– Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.
AMBAC		– American Municipal Bond Assurance Corp.
BHAC		– Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corp.
CAB		– Capital Appreciation Bonds
CEP		– Credit Enhancement Provider
Conv.		– Convertible
COP		– Certificates of Participation
CR		– Custodial Receipts
FHA		– Federal Housing Administration
GNMA		– Government National Mortgage Association
GO		– General Obligation
IDR		– Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
INS		– Insurer
LOC		– Letter of Credit
MFH		– Multi-Family Housing
NATL		– National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.
PCR		– Pollution Control Revenue Bonds
PILOT		– Payment-in-Lieu-of-Tax
RB		– Revenue Bonds
Ref.		– Refunding
Sec.		– Secured
SGI		– Syncora Guarantee, Inc.
Sr.		– Senior
Sub.		– Subordinated
TEMPS		– Tax-Exempt Mandatory Paydown Securities
VRD		– Variable Rate Demand

Notes to Schedule of Investments:


^(a)		Principal and/or interest payments are secured by the bond insurance company listed.
^(b)		Underlying security related to Dealer Trusts entered into by the Trust. See Note 1K.
^(c)		Security has an irrevocable call by the issuer or mandatory put by the holder. Maturity date reflects such call or put.
^(d)		Interest or dividend rate is redetermined periodically. Rate shown is the rate in effect on February 29, 2012.
^(e)		Security subject to the alternative minimum tax.
^(f)		Zero coupon bond issued at a discount.
^(g)		Principal and interest payments are fully enhanced by a letter of credit from the bank listed or a predecessor bank, branch or subsidiary.
^(h)		Demand security payable upon demand by the Trust at specified time intervals no greater than thirteen months. Interest rate is redetermined periodically. Rate shown is the rate in effect on February 29, 2012.
⁽ⁱ⁾		Security purchased or received in a transaction exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The security may be resold pursuant to an exemption from registration under the 1933 Act, typically to qualified institutional buyers. The aggregate value of these securities at February 29, 2012 was $2,857,269, which represented 0.60% of the Trust’s Net Assets.
^(j)		Advance refunded; secured by an escrow fund of U.S. Government obligations or other highly rated collateral.
^(k)		Defaulted security. Currently, the issuer is partially or fully in default with respect to interest payments. The aggregate value of these securities at February 29, 2012 was $1,122,070, which represented 0.23% of the Trust’s Net Assets
^(l)		This table provides a listing of those entities that have either issued, guaranteed, backed or otherwise enhanced the credit quality of more than 5% of the securities held in the portfolio. In instances where the entity has guaranteed, backed or otherwise enhanced the credit quality of a security, it is not primarily responsible for the issuer’s obligations but may be called upon to satisfy the issuer’s obligations.


Entities	Percentage

National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.		10.5	%

Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.		9.6

Assured Guaranty Corp.		7.7

American Municipal Bond Assurance Corp.		5.6


^(m)		Floating rate note obligations related to securities held. The interest rates shown reflect the rates in effect at February 29, 2012. At February 29, 2012, the Trust’s investments with a value of $254,829,176 are held by Dealer Trusts and serve as collateral for the $140,980,000 in the floating rate note obligations outstanding at that date.

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

19 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

February 29, 2012


Assets:
Investments, at value (Cost $765,513,706)	$	822,193,743

Receivable for:
Investments sold		534,000

Interest		9,499,845

Total assets		832,227,588

Liabilities:
Floating rate note obligations		140,980,000

Payable for:
Investments purchased		13,101,465

Amount due custodian		10,559,559

Income distributions — preferred and common shares		2,996

Accrued fees to affiliates		90,313

Accrued other operating expenses		202,014

Total liabilities		164,936,347

Preferred shares ($0.01 par value, authorized 100,000,000 shares, 7,480 issued with liquidation preference of $25,000 per share)		187,000,000

Net assets attributable to common shares	$	480,291,241

Net assets applicable to common shares consist of:
Shares of beneficial interest — common shares	$	504,225,325

Undistributed net investment income		10,078,392

Undistributed net realized gain (loss)		(90,692,513	)

Unrealized appreciation		56,680,037

	$	480,291,241

Shares outstanding, $0.01 par value per share, with an unlimited number of shares authorized:
Common shares outstanding		33,849,096

Net asset value per common share	$	14.19

Market value per common share	$	15.22

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

20 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Statement of Operations

For the year ended February 29, 2012


Investment income:
Interest	$	38,339,013

Expenses:
Advisory fees		4,230,819

Administrative services fees		162,710

Custodian fees		17,015

Interest, facilities and maintenance fees		1,171,496

Transfer agent fees		77,262

Trustees’ and officers’ fees and benefits		60,131

Professional services fees		592,987

Other		215,151

Total expenses		6,527,571

Less: Fees waived		(260,730	)

Net expenses		6,266,841

Net investment income		32,072,172

Realized and unrealized gain (loss):
Net realized gain (loss) from investment securities		(10,415,769	)

Change in net unrealized appreciation of investment securities		72,388,149

Net realized and unrealized gain		61,972,380

Distributions to preferred shareholders from net investment income		(252,303	)

Net increase in net assets resulting from operations applicable to common shares	$	93,792,249

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

21 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Statement of Changes in Net Assets

For the year ended February 29, 2012, for the period November 1, 2010 to February 28, 2011 and the year ended October 31, 2010


				Four months
	Year ended			ended			Year ended
	February 29,			February 28,			October 31,
	2012			2011			2010

Operations:
Net investment income	$	32,072,172		$	11,421,808		$	35,669,586

Net realized gain (loss)		(10,415,769	)		(3,736,562	)		(3,190,457	)

Change in net unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		72,388,149			(43,358,235	)		29,917,103

Distributions to preferred shareholders from net investment income		(252,303	)		(163,939	)		(477,264	)

Net increase (decrease) in net assets from operations applicable to common shares		93,792,249			(35,836,928	)		61,918,968

Distributions to common shareholders from net investment income		(34,899,298	)		(11,618,103	)		(34,639,103	)

Net increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to common shares resulting from investment activities		58,892,951			(47,455,031	)		27,279,865

Share transactions–net:
Increase from transactions in common shares of beneficial interest		823,054			291,974			1,088,395

Net increase (decrease) in net assets from operations applicable to common shares		59,716,005			(47,163,057	)		28,368,260

Net assets applicable to common shares:
Beginning of period		420,575,236			467,738,293			439,370,033

End of period (includes undistributed net investment income of $10,078,392, $13,213,563 and $13,868,568, respectively)	$	480,291,241		$	420,575,236		$	467,738,293

See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements which are an integral part of the financial statements.

22 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Statement of Cash Flows

For the year ended February 29, 2012


Cash provided by operating activities:
Net increase in net assets applicable to common shares resulting from operations	$	93,792,249

Adjustments to reconcile the change in net assets applicable to common shares from operations to net cash provided by operating activities:
Net realized loss from investments		10,415,769

Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(72,388,149	)

Amortization of premium and accretion of discount		236,356

Cost of purchases of investments		(108,916,565	)

Proceeds from sales of investments		97,169,511

Decrease in interest receivables and other assets		1,782,182

Increase in accrued expenses and other payables		7,198

Net cash provided by operating activities		22,098,551

Cash provided by (used in) financing activities:
Proceeds from redemptions of preferred shares		(34,000,000	)

Dividends paid to common shareholders from net investment income		(34,093,354	)

Increase in payable for amount due to custodian		5,909,803

Proceeds from floating rate note obligations		40,085,000

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		(22,098,551	)

Net increase in cash		—

Cash at the beginning of the period		—

Cash at the end of the period	$	—

Supplemental disclosure:
Cash paid during the period for interest, facilities and maintenance fees	$	1,225,884

Notes to Financial Statements

February 29, 2012

NOTE 1—Significant Accounting Policies

Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust (the “Trust”), a Massachusetts business trust, is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as a diversified, closed-end management investment company.

The Trust’s investment objective is to seek to provide a high level of current income which is exempt from federal income tax, consistent with preservation of capital.

The following is a summary of the significant accounting policies followed by the Trust in the preparation of its financial statements.


A.		Security Valuations — Securities, including restricted securities, are valued according to the following policy.
		Securities are fair valued using an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing service approved by the Board of Trustees. Evaluated quotes provided by the pricing service may be determined without exclusive reliance on quoted prices and may reflect appropriate factors such as institution-size trading in similar groups of securities, yield, quality, coupon rate, maturity, type of issue, individual trading characteristics and other market data. Securities with a demand feature exercisable within one to seven days are valued at par. Debt securities are subject to interest rate and credit risks. In addition, all debt securities involve some risk of default with respect to interest and principal payments.
		Securities for which market quotations either are not readily available or are unreliable are valued at fair value as determined in good faith by or under the supervision of the Trust’s officers following procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. Some of the factors which may be considered in determining fair value are fundamental analytical data relating to the investment; the nature and duration of any restrictions on transferability or disposition; trading in similar securities by the same issuer or comparable companies; relevant political, economic or issuer specific news; and other relevant factors under the circumstances.
		Valuations change in response to many factors including the historical and prospective earnings of the issuer, the value of the issuer’s assets, general economic conditions, interest rates, investor perceptions and market liquidity. Because of the inherent uncertainties of valuation, the values reflected in the financial statements may materially differ from the value received upon actual sale of those investments.

23 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


B.		Securities Transactions and Investment Income — Securities transactions are accounted for on a trade date basis. Realized gains or losses on sales are computed on the basis of specific identification of the securities sold. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis from settlement date. Dividend income (net of withholding tax, if any) is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Bond premiums and discounts are amortized and/or accreted for financial reporting purposes.
		The Trust may periodically participate in litigation related to Trust investments. As such, the Trust may receive proceeds from litigation settlements. Any proceeds received are included in the Statement of Operations as realized gain (loss) for investments no longer held and as unrealized gain (loss) for investments still held.
		Brokerage commissions and mark ups are considered transaction costs and are recorded as an increase to the cost basis of securities purchased and/or a reduction of proceeds on a sale of securities. Such transaction costs are included in the determination of net realized and unrealized gain (loss) from investment securities reported in the Statement of Operations and the Statement of Changes in Net Assets and the net realized and unrealized gains (losses) on securities per share in the Financial Highlights. Transaction costs are included in the calculation of the Trust’s net asset value and, accordingly, they reduce the Trust’s total returns. These transaction costs are not considered operating expenses and are not reflected in net investment income reported in the Statement of Operations and Statement of Changes in Net Assets, or the net investment income per share and ratios of expenses and net investment income reported in the Financial Highlights, nor are they limited by any expense limitation arrangements between the Trust and the investment adviser.
C.		Country Determination — For the purposes of making investment selection decisions and presentation in the Schedule of Investments, the investment adviser may determine the country in which an issuer is located and/or credit risk exposure based on various factors. These factors include the laws of the country under which the issuer is organized, where the issuer maintains a principal office, the country in which the issuer derives 50% or more of its total revenues and the country that has the primary market for the issuer’s securities, as well as other criteria. Among the other criteria that may be evaluated for making this determination are the country in which the issuer maintains 50% or more of its assets, the type of security, financial guarantees and enhancements, the nature of the collateral and the sponsor organization. Country of issuer and/or credit risk exposure has been determined to be the United States of America, unless otherwise noted.
D.		Distributions — The Trust declares and pays monthly dividends from net investment income to common shareholders. Distributions from net realized capital gain, if any, are generally paid annually and are distributed on a pro rata basis to common and preferred shareholders. The Trust may elect to treat a portion of the proceeds from redemptions as distributions for federal income tax purposes.
E.		Federal Income Taxes — The Trust intends to comply with the requirements of Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code necessary to qualify as a regulated investment company and to distribute substantially all of the Trust’s taxable earnings to shareholders. As such, the Trust will not be subject to federal income taxes on otherwise taxable income (including net realized capital gain) that is distributed to shareholders. Therefore, no provision for federal income taxes is recorded in the financial statements.
		In addition, the Trust intends to invest in such municipal securities to allow it to qualify to pay shareholders “exempt dividends”, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
		The Trust files tax returns in the U.S. Federal jurisdiction and certain other jurisdictions. Generally, the Trust is subject to examinations by such taxing authorities for up to three years after the filing of the return for the tax period.
F.		Interest, Facilities and Maintenance Fees — Interest, Facilities and Maintenance Fees include interest and related borrowing costs such as commitment fees and other expenses associated with lines of credit and interest and administrative expenses related to establishing and maintaining Auction Rate Preferred Shares and floating rate note obligations, if any.
G.		Accounting Estimates — The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period including estimates and assumptions related to taxation. Actual results could differ from those estimates by a significant amount. In addition, the Trust monitors for material events or transactions that may occur or become known after the period-end date and before the date the financial statements are released to print.
H.		Indemnifications — Under the Trust’s organizational documents, each Trustee, officer, employee or other agent of the Trust is indemnified against certain liabilities that may arise out of performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, in the normal course of business, the Trust enters into contracts, including the Trust’s servicing agreements that contain a variety of indemnification clauses. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Trust that have not yet occurred. The risk of material loss as a result of such indemnification claims is considered remote.
I.		Other Risks — The value of, payment of interest on, repayment of principal for and the ability to sell a municipal security may be affected by constitutional amendments, legislative enactments, executive orders, administrative regulations, voter initiatives and the economics of the regions in which the issuers are located.
		Since many municipal securities are issued to finance similar projects, especially those relating to education, health care, transportation and utilities, conditions in those sectors can affect the overall municipal securities market and a Trust’s investments in municipal securities.
		There is some risk that a portion or all of the interest received from certain tax-free municipal securities could become taxable as a result of determinations by the Internal Revenue Service.
J.		Cash and Cash Equivalents — For the purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows the Trust defines Cash and Cash Equivalents as cash (including foreign currency), money market funds and other investments held in lieu of cash and excludes investments made with cash collateral received.
K.		Floating Rate Note Obligations — The Trust invests in inverse floating rate securities, such as Residual Interest Bonds (“RIBs”) or Tender Option Bonds (“TOBs”) for investment purposes and to enhance the yield of the Trust. Inverse floating rate investments tend to underperform the market for fixed rate bonds in a rising interest rate environment, but tend to outperform the market for fixed rate bonds when interest rates decline or remain relatively stable. Such transactions may be purchased in the secondary market without first owning the underlying bond or by the sale of fixed rate bonds by the Trust to special purpose trusts established by a broker dealer (“Dealer Trusts”) in exchange for cash and residual interests in the Dealer Trusts’

24 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


		assets and cash flows, which are in the form of inverse floating rate securities. The Dealer Trusts finance the purchases of the fixed rate bonds by issuing floating rate notes to third parties and allowing the Trust to retain residual interest in the bonds. The floating rate notes issued by the Dealer Trusts have interest rates that reset weekly and the floating rate note holders have the option to tender their notes to the Dealer Trusts for redemption at par at each reset date. The residual interests held by the Trust (inverse floating rate investments) include the right of the Trust (1) to cause the holders of the floating rate notes to tender their notes at par at the next interest rate reset date, and (2) to transfer the municipal bond from the Dealer Trusts to the Trust, thereby collapsing the Dealer Trusts.
		TOBs are presently classified as private placement securities. Private placement securities are subject to restrictions on resale because they have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended or are otherwise not readily marketable. As a result of the absence of a public trading market for these securities, they may be less liquid than publicly traded securities. Although these securities may be resold in privately negotiated transactions, the prices realized from these sales could be less than those originally paid by the Trust or less than what may be considered the fair value of such securities.
		The Trust accounts for the transfer of bonds to the Dealer Trusts as secured borrowings, with the securities transferred remaining in the Trust’s investment assets, and the related floating rate notes reflected as Trust liabilities under the caption Floating rate note obligations on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The Trust records the interest income from the fixed rate bonds under the caption Interest and records the expenses related to floating rate obligations and any administrative expenses of the Dealer Trusts as a component of Interest, facilities and maintenance fees on the Statement of Operations.
		The Trust generally invests in inverse floating rate securities that include embedded leverage, thus exposing the Trust to greater risks and increased costs. The primary risks associated with inverse floating rate securities are varying degrees of liquidity and the changes in the value of such securities in response to changes in market rates of interest to a greater extent than the value of an equal principal amount of a fixed rate security having similar credit quality, redemption provisions and maturity which may cause the Trust’s net asset value to be more volatile than if it had not invested in inverse floating rate securities. In certain instances, the short-term floating rate interests created by the special purpose trust may not be able to be sold to third parties or, in the case of holders tendering (or putting) such interests for repayment of principal, may not be able to be remarketed to third parties. In such cases, the special purpose trust holding the long-term fixed rate bonds may be collapsed. In the case of RIBs or TOBs created by the contribution of long-term fixed income bonds by the Trust, the Trust will then be required to repay the principal amount of the tendered securities. During times of market volatility, illiquidity or uncertainty, the Trust could be required to sell other portfolio holdings at a disadvantageous time to raise cash to meet that obligation.

NOTE 2—Advisory Fees and Other Fees Paid to Affiliates

The Trust has entered into a master investment advisory agreement with Invesco Advisers, Inc. (the “Adviser” or “Invesco”). Under the terms of the investment advisory agreement, the Trust pays an advisory fee to the Adviser based on the annual rate 0.55% of the Trust’s average daily managed assets including current preferred shares and leverage entered into to retire preferred shares of the Trust.

Under the terms of a master sub-advisory agreement between the Adviser and each of Invesco Asset Management Deutschland GmbH, Invesco Asset Management Limited, Invesco Asset Management (Japan) Limited, Invesco Australia Limited, Invesco Hong Kong Limited, Invesco Senior Secured Management, Inc. and Invesco Canada Ltd. (collectively, the “Affiliated Sub-Advisers”) the Adviser, not the Trust, may pay 40% of the fees paid to the Adviser to any such Affiliated Sub-Adviser(s) that provide(s) discretionary investment management services to the Trust based on the percentage of assets allocated to such Sub-Adviser(s).

The Adviser has contractually agreed, through at least June 30, 2012, to waive advisory fees and/or reimburse expenses to the extent necessary to limit the Trust’s expenses (excluding certain items discussed below) to 1.03%. In determining the Adviser’s obligation to waive advisory fees and/or reimburse expenses, the following expenses are not taken into account, and could cause the Trust’s expenses to exceed the limit reflected above: (1) interest, facilities and maintenance fees; (2) taxes; (3) dividend expense on short sales; (4) extraordinary or non-routine items, including litigation expenses; and (5) expenses that the Trust has incurred but did not actually pay because of an expense offset arrangement. Unless the Board of Trustees and Invesco mutually agree to amend or continue the fee waiver agreement, it will terminate on June 30, 2012.

For the year ended February 29, 2012, the Adviser waived advisory fees of $260,730.

The Trust has entered into a master administrative services agreement with Invesco pursuant to which the Trust has agreed to pay Invesco for certain administrative costs incurred in providing accounting services to the Trust. For the year ended February 29, 2012, expenses incurred under this agreement are shown in the Statement of Operations as administrative services fees.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust are officers and directors of Invesco.

NOTE 3—Additional Valuation Information

GAAP defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date, under current market conditions. GAAP establishes a hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation methods giving the highest priority to readily available unadjusted quoted prices in an active market for identical assets (Level 1) and the lowest priority to significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) generally when market prices are not readily available or are unreliable. Based on the valuation inputs, the securities or other investments are tiered into one of three levels. Changes in valuation methods may result in transfers in or out of an investment’s assigned level:


	Level 1 —	Prices are determined using quoted prices in an active market for identical assets.
	Level 2 —	Prices are determined using other significant observable inputs. Observable inputs are inputs that other market participants may use in pricing a security. These may include quoted prices for similar securities, interest rates, prepayment speeds, credit risk, yield curves, loss severities, default rates, discount rates, volatilities and others.
	Level 3 —	Prices are determined using significant unobservable inputs. In situations where quoted prices or observable inputs are unavailable (for example, when there is little or no market activity for an investment at the end of the period), unobservable inputs may be used. Unobservable inputs

25 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust


		reflect the Trust’s own assumptions about the factors market participants would use in determining fair value of the securities or instruments and would be based on the best available information.

The following is a summary of the tiered valuation input levels, as of February 29, 2012. The level assigned to the securities valuations may not be an indication of the risk or liquidity associated with investing in those securities. Because of the inherent uncertainties of valuation, the values reflected in the financial statements may materially differ from the value received upon actual sale of those investments.

During the year ended February 29, 2012, there were no significant transfers between investment levels.


	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total

Municipal Obligations	$	—	$	822,193,743	$	—	$	822,193,743

NOTE 4—Trustees’ and Officers’ Fees and Benefits

“Trustees’ and Officers’ Fees and Benefits” include amounts accrued by the Trust to pay remuneration to certain Trustees and Officers of the Trust.

During the year ended February 29, 2012, the Trust paid legal fees of $230,530 for services rendered by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP as counsel to the Trust. A trustee of the Trust is of counsel with the firm.

NOTE 5—Cash Balances and Borrowings

The Fund is permitted to temporarily carry a negative or overdrawn balance in its account with State Street Bank and Trust Company (“SSB”), the custodian bank. Such balances, if any at period end, are shown in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities under the payable caption amount due custodian. To compensate the custodian bank for such overdrafts, the overdrawn Fund may either (1) leave funds as a compensating balance in the account so the custodian bank can be compensated by earning the additional interest; or (2) compensate by paying the custodian bank at a rate agreed upon by the custodian bank and Invesco, not to exceed the contractually agreed upon rate.

Inverse floating rate obligations resulting from the transfer of bonds to Dealer Trusts are accounted for as secured borrowings. The average floating rate notes outstanding and average annual interest and fees related to inverse floating rate note obligations during the year ended February 29, 2012 were $106,801,451 and 0.80%, respectively.

NOTE 6—Distributions to Shareholders and Tax Components of Net Assets

Tax Character of Distributions to Shareholders Paid During the year ended February 29, 2012, for the period November 1, 2010 to February 28, 2011 and the year ended October 31, 2010:


			Four months
	Year ended		ended		Year ended
	February 29,		February 28,		October 31,
	2012		2011		2010

Ordinary income	$	—	$	—	$	284,450

Tax-exempt income		35,151,601		11,782,043		34,831,917

Total distributions	$	35,151,601	$	11,782,043	$	35,116,367

Tax Components of Net Assets at Period-End:


	February 29,
	2012

Undistributed ordinary income	$	9,486,319

Net unrealized appreciation — investments		55,494,255

Post-October deferrals		(3,236,688	)

Capital loss carryforward		(85,677,970	)

Shares of beneficial interest — common shares		504,225,325

Total net assets applicable to common shares	$	480,291,241

The difference between book-basis and tax-basis unrealized appreciation (depreciation) is due to differences in the timing of recognition of gains and losses on investments for tax and book purposes. The Trust’s net unrealized appreciation difference is attributable primarily to TOBs, book to tax accretion and amortization differences and defaulted bonds.

The temporary book/tax differences are a result of timing differences between book and tax recognition of income and/or expenses. The Fund’s temporary book/tax differences are the result of the trustee deferral of compensation and retirement plan benefits.

Capital loss carryforward is calculated and reported as of a specific date. Results of transactions and other activity after that date may affect the amount of capital loss carryforward actually available for the Trust to utilize. The Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”) eliminated the eight-year carryover period for capital losses that arise in taxable years beginning after its enactment date of December 22, 2010. Consequently, these capital losses can be carried forward for an unlimited period. However, capital losses with an expiration period may not be used to offset capital gains until all net capital losses without an expiration date have been utilized. Additionally, post-enactment capital loss carryovers will retain their character as either short-term or

26 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

long-term capital losses instead of as short-term capital losses as under prior law. The ability to utilize capital loss carryforward in the future may be limited under the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations based on the results of future transactions.

The Trust has a capital loss carryforward as of February 29, 2012, which expires as follows:


Capital Loss Carryforward*
Expiration	Short-Term		Long-Term		Total

February 28, 2013	$	577,984	$	—	$	577,984

February 28, 2014		1,179,918		—		1,179,918

February 28, 2015		3,206,957		—		3,206,957

February 29, 2016		41,319,327		—		41,319,327

February 28, 2017		27,670,283		—		27,670,283

February 28, 2018		3,145,788		—		3,145,788

February 28, 2019		3,734,031		—		3,734,031

No Expiration Date		—		4,843,682		4,843,682

	$	80,834,288	$	4,843,682	$	85,677,970


*	Capital loss carryforward as of the date listed above is reduced for limitations, if any, to the extent required by the Internal Revenue Code.

NOTE 7—Investment Securities

The aggregate amount of investment securities (other than short-term securities, U.S. Treasury obligations and money market funds, if any) purchased and sold by the Trust during the year ended February 29, 2012 was $121,244,995 and $117,764,698, respectively. Cost of investments on a tax basis includes the adjustments for financial reporting purposes as of the most recently completed Federal income tax reporting period-end.


Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) of Investment Securities on a Tax Basis

Aggregate unrealized appreciation of investment securities	$	60,864,823

Aggregate unrealized (depreciation) of investment securities		(5,370,568	)

Net unrealized appreciation of investment securities	$	55,494,255

Cost of investments for tax purposes is $766,699,488.

NOTE 8—Reclassification of Permanent Differences

Primarily as a result of differing book/tax treatment of taxable income on February 29, 2012, undistributed net investment income was decreased by $55,742, undistributed net realized gain (loss) was increased by $29,293 and shares of beneficial interest was increased by $26,449. This reclassification had no effect on the net assets of the Trust.

NOTE 9—Common Shares of Beneficial Interest

Transactions in common shares of beneficial interest were as follows:


			Four months
			ended		Year ended
	February 29,		February 28,		October 31,
	2012		2011		2010

Beginning Shares		33,787,408		33,764,765		33,684,098

Shares Issued Through Dividend Reinvestment		61,688		22,643		80,667

Ending Shares		33,849,096		33,787,408		33,764,765

The Board of Trustees have approved share repurchases whereby the Trust may, when appropriate, purchase shares in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions at a price not above market value or net asset value, whichever is lower at the time of purchase.

NOTE 10—Preferred Shares of Beneficial Interest

The Trust has issued Auction Rate Preferred Shares (“preferred shares”) which have a liquidation value of $25,000 per share plus the redemption premium, if any, plus accumulated but unpaid dividends, whether or not declared, thereon to the date of distribution. The Trust may redeem such shares, in whole or in part, at the original purchase price of $25,000 per share plus accumulated but unpaid dividends, whether or not declared, thereon to the date of redemption.

Historically, the Trust paid annual fees equivalent to 0.25% of the preferred share liquidation value for the remarketing efforts associated with the preferred auction. Effective March 16, 2009, the Trust decreased this amount to 0.15% due to auction failures. In the future, if auctions no longer fail, the Trust may return to an annual fee payment of 0.25% of the preferred share liquidation value. These fees are included as a component of “Interest, facilities and maintenance fees” expense on the Statement of Operations.

27 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Dividends, which are cumulative, are reset through auction procedures.


			Amount							Range of
Series	Shares+		(000’s omitted)+		Rate+			Reset Date		Dividend Rates++

A		1,650	$	41,250		0.055	%		03/28/2012		0.033-0.210%

B		1,650		41,250		0.110			03/23/2012		0.022-0.210

C		1,100		27,500		0.044			03/09/2012		0.033-0.243

D		1,100		27,500		0.110			03/23/2012		0.022-0.210

E		1,100		27,500		0.033			03/06/2012		0.033-0.188

F		880		22,000		0.044			03/09/2012		0.033-0.243


⁺		As of February 29, 2012.
⁺⁺		For the year ended February 29, 2012.

Subsequent to February 29, 2012 and up through April 5, 2012, the Trust paid dividends to preferred shareholders at rates ranging from 0.033% to 0.364% in the aggregate amount of $24,157.

The Trust is subject to certain restrictions relating to the preferred shares. Failure to comply with these restrictions could preclude the Trust from declaring any distributions to common shareholders or purchasing common shares and/or could trigger the mandatory redemption of preferred shares at liquidation value.

Beginning February 14, 2008 and continuing through February 29, 2012, all series of preferred shares of the Trust were not successfully remarketed. As a result, the dividend rates of these preferred shares were reset to the maximum applicable rate.

The preferred shares, which are entitled to one vote per share, generally vote with the common shares but vote separately as a class to elect two Trustees and on any matters affecting the rights of the preferred shares.

The preferred shares are not listed on an exchange. Investors in preferred shares may participate in auctions through authorized broker-dealers; however, such broker-dealers are not required to maintain a secondary market in preferred shares, and there can be no assurance that a secondary market will develop, or if it does develop, a secondary market may not provide you with liquidity. When a preferred share auction fails, investors may not be able to sell any or all of their preferred shares and because of the nature of the market for preferred shares, investors may receive less than the price paid for their preferred shares if sold outside of the auction.

During the year ended February 29, 2012, the Trust entered into additional floating rate note as an alternative form of leverage in order to redeem a portion of its preferred shares. Transactions in preferred shares were as follows:


	Series A						Series B						Series C
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value			Shares			Value

Outstanding at February 28, 2011		1,950		$	48,750,000			1,950		$	48,750,000			1,300		$	32,500,000

Shares redeemed		(300	)		(7,500,000	)		(300	)		(7,500,000	)		(200	)		(5,000,000	)

Outstanding at February 29, 2012		1,650		$	41,250,000			1,650		$	41,250,000			1,100		$	27,500,000


	Series D						Series E						Series F
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value			Shares			Value

Outstanding at February 28, 2011		1,300		$	32,500,000			1,300		$	32,500,000			1,040		$	26,000,000

Shares redeemed		(200	)		(5,000,000	)		(200	)		(5,000,000	)		(160	)		(4,000,000	)

Outstanding at February 29, 2012		1,100		$	27,500,000			1,100		$	27,500,000			880		$	22,000,000

NOTE 11—Dividends

The Trust declared the following dividends to common shareholders from net investment income subsequent to February 29, 2012:

Declaration Date

Amount Per Share

Record Date

Payable Date

March 1, 2012

0.086

March 14, 2012

March 30, 2012

April 2, 2012

0.086

April 13, 2012

April 30, 2012

28 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

NOTE 12—Financial Highlights

The following schedule presents financial highlights for a share of the Trust outstanding throughout the periods indicated.


				Four months
	Year ended			ended
	February 29,			February 28,			Year ended October 31,
	2012			2011			2010			2009			2008			2007

Net asset value per common share, beginning of period	$	12.45		$	13.85		$	13.04		$	10.52		$	15.46		$	16.61

Net investment income^(a)		0.95			0.34			1.06			1.15			1.26			1.17

Net gains (losses) on securities (both realized and unrealized)		1.83			(1.40	)		0.79			2.30			(5.07	)		(1.17	)

Distributions paid to preferred shareholders from:
Net investment income		(0.01	)		(0.00	)		(0.01	)		(0.05	)		(0.30	)		(0.37	)

Total from investment operations		2.77			(1.06	)		1.84			3.40			(4.11	)		(0.37	)

Less distributions to common shareholders from:
Dividends from net investment income		(1.03	)		(0.34	)		(1.03	)		(0.88	)		(0.83	)		(0.78	)

Net asset value per common share, end of period	$	14.19		$	12.45		$	13.85		$	13.04		$	10.52		$	15.46

Market value, end of period	$	15.22		$	12.51		$	14.51		$	13.23		$	10.10		$	14.30

Total return at net asset value^(b)		23.10	%		(7.65	)%		14.58	%

Total return at market value^(c)		31.40	%		(11.43	)%		18.32	%		41.33	%		(24.86	)%		2.40	%

Net assets applicable to common shares, end of period (000s omitted)	$	480,291		$	420,575		$	467,738		$	439,370		$	353,764		$	524,862

Portfolio turnover rate^(d)		16	%		2	%		10	%		14	%		57	%		23	%

Ratios/supplemental data based on average net assets applicable to common shares:
Ratio of expenses:
With fee waivers and/or expense reimbursements^(e)		1.40	%^(f)		1.32	%^(h)		1.30	%		1.54	%		2.11	%		2.03	%

With fee waivers and/or expense reimbursements excluding interest, facilities and maintenance fees^(e)(g)		1.14	%^(f)		1.06	%^(h)		1.08	%		1.17	%		1.03	%		1.03	%

Without fee waivers and/or expense reimbursements^(e)		1.46	%^(f)		1.37	%^(h)		1.40	%		1.73	%		2.28	%		2.18	%

Net investment income before preferred share dividends		7.18	%^(f)		8.13	%^(h)		7.88	%		9.92	%		8.92	%		7.30	%

Preferred share dividends		0.06	%^(f)		0.11	%^(h)		0.11	%

Ratio of net investment income after preferred share dividends		7.12	%^(f)		8.02	%^(h)		7.77	%		9.53	%		6.78	%		4.99	%

Senior securities:
Total amount of preferred shares outstanding (000s omitted)	$	187,000		$	221,000		$	221,000	⁽ⁱ⁾	$	255,000⁽ⁱ	⁾	$	272,000⁽ⁱ	⁾	$	340,000⁽ⁱ	⁾

Asset coverage per preferred share^(j)	$	89,210		$	72,576		$	77,912		$	68,078		$	57,538		$	63,629

Liquidating preference per preferred share	$	25,000		$	25,000		$	25,000		$	25,000		$	25,000		$	25,000


^(a)		Calculated using average shares outstanding.
^(b)		Includes adjustments in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and as such, the net asset value for financial reporting purposes and the returns based upon those net asset values may differ from the net asset value and returns for shareholder transactions. Not annualized for periods less than one year, if applicable.
^(c)		Total return based on common share market price assumes an investment at the common share market price at the beginning of the period indicated, reinvestment of all distributions for the period in accordance with the Trust’s dividend reinvestment plan, and sale of all shares at the closing common share market price at the end of the period indicated. Not annualized for periods less than one year, if applicable.
^(d)		Portfolio turnover is not annualized for periods less than one year, if applicable.
^(e)		Ratios do not reflect the effect of dividend payments to auction rate preferred shareholders.
^(f)		Ratios are based on average daily net assets applicable to common shares (000’s omitted) of $446,564.
^(g)		For the years ended October 31, 2010 and prior, ratio does not exclude facilities and maintenance fees.
^(h)		Annualized
⁽ⁱ⁾		Total shares outstanding for the years ended October 31, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were 8,840, 10,200, 10,880 and 13,600, respectively.
^(j)		Calculated by subtracting the Trust’s total liabilities (not including the preferred shares) from the Trust’s total assets and dividing this by preferred shares outstanding.

29 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

NOTE 13—Significant Event

The Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) approved the redomestication of the Trust, a Massachusetts business trust, into a Delaware statutory trust pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Redomestication (the “Redomestication”). The Board also approved an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Invesco Municipal Premium Income Trust, Invesco Van Kampen Select Sector Municipal Trust and Invesco Van Kampen Trust for Value Municipals (each a “Target Trust”) would merge with and into the Trust in accordance with the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (the “Merger”). As a result of the Merger, all of the assets and liabilities of each Target Trust will become assets and liabilities of the Trust and each Target Trust’s shareholders will become shareholders of the Trust. The Redomestication and the Merger are subject to shareholder approval.

In addition, the Board also approved a plan to redeem all of the outstanding auction rate preferred shares at their respective liquidation preferences. These redemptions are anticipated to be funded with proceeds received from the issuance of Variable Rate Munifund Term Preferred Shares (“VMTPS”) and Tender Option Bonds (“TOBs”). VMTPS are a variable rate form of preferred stock with a mandatory redemption date. These redemptions and this issuance of VMTPS are targeted to occur in the first half of 2012.

NOTE 14—Legal Proceedings

Terms used in the Legal Proceedings Note are defined terms solely for the purpose of this note.

Pending Litigation and Regulatory Inquiries

On January 17, 2011, a Consolidated Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint entitled Clifford Rotz, et al. v. Van Kampen Asset Management et al., was filed on behalf of Invesco Van Kampen High Income Trust II, Invesco Van Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust II, Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust, Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Trust and Invesco Van Kampen Senior Income Trust (the “Trusts”) against Van Kampen Asset Management, Morgan Stanley and certain current and former executive officers of the Trusts (collectively, the “Defendants”) alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties to common shareholders by causing the Trusts to redeem Auction Rate Preferred Securities (“ARPS”) at their liquidation value. Specifically, the shareholders claim that the Board and officers had no obligation to provide liquidity to the ARPS shareholders, the redemptions were improperly motivated to benefit the prior adviser by preserving business relationships with the ARPS holders, i.e., institutional investors, and the market value and fair value of the ARPS were less than par at the time they were redeemed. The Complaint alleges that the redemption of the ARPS occurred at the expense of the Trusts and their common shareholders. This Complaint amends and consolidates two separate complaints that were filed by Clifford T. Rotz, Jr., Robert Fast and Gene Turban on July 22, 2010, and by Harry Suleski, Leon McDermott, Marilyn Morrison and John Johnson on August 3, 2010. Each of the Trusts initially received a demand letter from the plaintiffs on April 8, 2010. Plaintiffs seek judgment that: 1) orders Defendants to refrain from redeeming any ARPS at their liquidation value using Trust assets; 2) awards monetary damages against all Defendants, individually, jointly or severally, in favor of the Trusts, for all losses and damages allegedly suffered as a result of the redemptions of ARPS at their liquidation value; 3) grants appropriate equitable relief to remedy the Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties; and 4) awards to Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the action. The Board formed a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) to investigate these claims and to make a recommendation to the Board regarding whether pursuit of these claims is in the best interests of the Trusts. After reviewing the findings of the SLC’s, the Board announced on June 24, 2011, that it had adopted the SLC’s recommendation to seek dismissal of the action. The Trusts filed a motion to dismiss on October 4, 2011, which remains pending. Plaintiffs filed a motion on November 28, 2011 asking the court to hold the motion to dismiss in abeyance while plaintiffs conduct limited discovery. The Plaintiffs’ request for discovery has been briefed and the court’s decision whether Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery is pending. This matter is pending. The Trust has accrued $470,072 in expenses relating to these matters during the year ended February 29, 2012.

Management of Invesco and the Trust believe that the outcome of the proceedings described above will have no material adverse effect on the Trust or on the ability of Invesco to provide ongoing services to the Trust.

30 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders of
Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust:

In our opinion, the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, and the related statements of operations, of changes in net assets and of cash flows and the financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust (hereafter referred to as the “Trust”) at February 29, 2012, the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended, and the changes in its net assets and financial highlights for the year then ended, the period ended February 28, 2011 and the year ended October 31, 2010, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These financial statements and financial highlights (hereafter referred to as “financial statements”) are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these financial statements 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. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits, which included confirmation of securities at February 29, 2012 by correspondence with the custodian and brokers, provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. The financial highlights of the Trust for the periods ended October 31, 2009 and prior were audited by other independent auditors whose report dated December 21, 2009 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

April 23, 2012

Houston, Texas

31 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Tax Information

Form 1099-DIV, Form 1042-S and other year-end tax information provide shareholders with actual calendar year amounts that should be included in their tax returns. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors.

The following distribution information is being provided as required by the Internal Revenue Code or to meet a specific state’s requirement.

The Trust designates the following amounts or, if subsequently determined to be different, the maximum amount allowable for its fiscal year ended February 29, 2012:


Federal and State Income Tax
Qualified Dividend Income*			0%
Corporate Dividends Received Deduction*			0%
Tax-Exempt Interest Dividends*			100.00%


	*	The above percentages are based on ordinary income dividends paid to shareholders during the Trust’s fiscal year.

32 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Supplemental Information

The disclosure concerning the investment objective, principal investment strategies and principal risks of Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust (the “Fund”) is being updated. The investment objective has not changed; however the Board of Trustees of the Fund approved a revised statement of the principal investment strategies for the Fund. The revised disclosure of the investment objective, principal investment strategies and associated principal risks for the Fund is set forth below.

Investment Objective

The investment objective of Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust (the “Fund”) is to provide Common Shareholders with a high level of current income exempt from federal income tax, consistent with preservation of capital.

The investment objective is fundamental and may not be changed without approval of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities, as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”).

Principal Investment Strategies of the Fund

Under normal market conditions, at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets will be invested in municipal securities. The policy stated in the foregoing sentence is a fundamental policy of the Fund and may not be changed without approval of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities, as defined in the 1940 Act. Under normal market conditions, the Fund’s investment adviser, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (the “Adviser”), seeks to achieve the Fund’s investment objective by investing at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets in investment grade municipal securities. Investment grade securities are: (i) securities rated BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC, a subsidiary of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“S&P”) or Baa3 or higher by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) or an equivalent rating by another nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”), (ii) comparably rated short term securities, or (iii) unrated municipal securities determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality at the time of purchase. Under normal market conditions, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in municipal securities rated below investment grade or that are unrated but determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality at the time of purchase. Lower-grade securities are commonly referred to as junk bonds and involve greater risks than investments in higher-grade securities. The Fund does not purchase securities that are in default or rated in categories lower than B- by S&P or B3 by Moody’s or unrated securities of comparable quality.

The foregoing percentage and rating limitations apply at the time of acquisition of a security based on the last previous determination of the Fund’s net asset value. Any subsequent change in any rating by a rating service or change in percentages resulting from market fluctuations or other changes in the Fund’s total assets will not require elimination of any security from the Fund’s portfolio.

The Fund may invest all or a substantial portion of its total assets in municipal securities that may subject certain investors to the federal alternative minimum tax and, therefore, a substantial portion of the income produced by the Fund may be taxable for such investors under the federal alternative minimum tax. Accordingly, the Fund may not be a suitable investment for investors who are already subject to the federal alternative minimum tax or could become subject to the federal alternative minimum tax as a result of an investment in the Fund.

The Adviser buys and sells securities for the Fund with a view towards seeking a high level of current income exempt from federal income taxes, subject to reasonable credit risk. As a result, the Fund will not necessarily invest in the highest yielding municipal securities permitted by its investment policies if the Adviser determines that market risks or credit risks associated with such investments would subject the Fund’s portfolio to undue risk. The potential realization of capital gains or losses resulting from possible changes in interest rates will not be a major consideration and frequency of portfolio turnover generally will not be a limiting factor if the Adviser considers it advantageous to purchase or sell securities.

The Adviser employs a bottom-up, research-driven approach to identify securities that have attractive risk/reward characteristics for the sectors in which the Fund invests. The Adviser also integrates macroeconomic analysis and forecasting into its evaluation and ranking of various sectors and individual securities. Finally, the Fund employs leverage in an effort to enhance the Fund’s income and total return. Sell decisions are based on: (i) a deterioration or likely deterioration of an individual issuer’s capacity to meet its debt obligations on a timely basis; (ii) a deterioration or likely deterioration of the broader fundamentals of a particular industry or sector; and (iii) opportunities in the secondary or primary market to purchase a security with better relative value.

Municipal Securities. Municipal securities are obligations issued by or on behalf of states, territories or possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia and their cities, counties, political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, the interest on which, in the opinion of bond counsel or other counsel to the issuers of such securities, is, at the time of issuance, exempt from federal income tax. The Adviser does not conduct its own analysis of the tax status of the interest paid by municipal securities held by the Fund, but will rely on the opinion of counsel to the issuer of each such instrument.

The issuers of municipal securities obtain funds for various public purposes, including the construction of a wide range of public facilities such as airports, highways, bridges, schools, hospitals, housing, mass transportation, streets and water and sewer works. Other public purposes for which municipal securities may be issued include refunding outstanding obligations, obtaining funds for general operating expenses and obtaining funds to lend to other public institutions and facilities. Certain types of municipal securities are issued to obtain funding for privately operated facilities.

The yields of municipal securities depend on, among other things, general money market conditions, general conditions of the municipal securities market, size of a particular offering, the maturity of the obligation and rating of the issue. There is no limitation as to the maturity of the municipal securities in which the Fund may invest. The ratings of NRSROs represent their opinions of the quality of the municipal securities they undertake to rate. These ratings are general and are not absolute standards of quality. Consequently, municipal securities with the same maturity, coupon and rating may have different yields while municipal securities of the same maturity and coupon with different ratings may have the same yield.

The two principal classifications of municipal securities are general obligation and revenue or special delegation securities. General obligation securities are secured by the issuer’s pledge of its faith, credit and taxing power for the payment of principal and interest. Revenue securities are usually payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise tax or other specific revenue source. Industrial development bonds are usually revenue securities, the credit quality of which is normally directly related to the credit standing of the industrial user involved.

33 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Within these principal classifications of municipal securities, there are a variety of types of municipal securities, including:


	•	Variable rate securities, which bear rates of interest that are adjusted periodically according to formulae intended to reflect market rates of interest.
	•	Municipal notes, including tax, revenue and bond anticipation notes of short maturity, generally less than three years, which are issued to obtain temporary funds for various public purposes.
	•	Variable rate demand notes, which are obligations that contain a floating or variable interest rate adjustment formula and which are subject to a right of demand for payment of the principal balance plus accrued interest either at any time or at specified intervals. The interest rate on a variable rate demand note may be based on a known lending rate, such as a bank’s prime rate, and may be adjusted when such rate changes, or the interest rate may be a market rate that is adjusted at specified intervals. The adjustment formula maintains the value of the variable rate demand note at approximately the par value of such note at the adjustment date.
	•	Municipal leases, which are obligations issued by state and local governments or authorities to finance the acquisition of equipment and facilities. Certain municipal lease obligations may include non-appropriation clauses which provide that the municipality has no obligation to make lease or installment purchase payments in future years unless money is appropriated for such purpose on a yearly basis.
	•	Private activity bonds, which are issued by, or on behalf of, public authorities to finance privately operated facilities.
	•	Participation certificates, which are obligations issued by state or local governments or authorities to finance the acquisition of equipment and facilities. They may represent participations in a lease, an installment purchase contract or a conditional sales contract.
	•	Municipal securities that may not be backed by the faith, credit and taxing power of the issuer.
	•	Municipal securities that are privately placed and that may have restrictions on the Fund’s ability to resell, such as timing restrictions or requirements that the securities only be sold to qualified institutional investors.
	•	Municipal securities that are insured by financial insurance companies.

Derivatives. The Fund may use derivative instruments for a variety of purposes, including hedging and risk management, and (other than futures or swaps) for portfolio management or to earn income. Derivatives are financial instruments whose value is based on the value of another underlying asset, interest rate, index or financial instrument. Derivative instruments and techniques that the Fund may principally use include:

Futures. A futures contract is a standardized agreement between two parties to buy or sell a specific quantity of an underlying instrument at a specific price at a specific future time. The value of a futures contract tends to increase and decrease in tandem with the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are bilateral agreements, with both the purchaser and the seller equally obligated to complete the transaction. Depending on the terms of the particular contract, futures contracts are settled through either physical delivery of the underlying instrument on the settlement date or by payment of a cash settlement amount on the settlement date.

Swaps. A swap contract is an agreement between two parties pursuant to which the parties exchange payments at specified dates on the basis of a specified notional amount, with the payments calculated by reference to specified securities, indexes, reference rates, currencies or other instruments. Most swap agreements provide that when the period payment dates for both parties are the same, the payments are made on a net basis (i.e., the two payment streams are netted out, with only the net amount paid by one party to the other). The Fund’s obligations or rights under a swap contract entered into on a net basis will generally be equal only to the net amount to be paid or received under the agreement, based on the relative values of the positions held by each counterparty.

Inverse Floating Rate Obligations. The Fund may invest in inverse floating rate obligations. Inverse floating rate obligations are variable rate debt instruments that pay interest at rates that move in the opposite direction of prevailing interest rates. Because the interest rate paid to holders of such obligations is generally determined by subtracting a variable or floating rate from a predetermined amount, the interest rate paid to holders of such obligations will decrease as such variable or floating rate increases and increase as such variable or floating rate decreases. The inverse floating rate obligations in which the Fund may invest include derivative instruments such as residual interest bonds (“RIBs”) or tender option bonds (“TOBs”). Such instruments are typically created by a special purpose trust that holds long-term fixed rate bonds and sells two classes of beneficial interests: short-term floating rate interests, which are sold to third party investors, and inverse floating residual interests, which are purchased by the Fund. The short-term floating rate interests have first priority on the cash flow from the bond held by the special purpose trust and the Fund (as holder of the inverse floating residual interests) is paid the residual cash flow from the bond held by the special purpose trust.

When-Issued and Delayed Delivery Transactions. The Fund may purchase and sell securities on a when-issued and delayed delivery basis, which means that the Fund buys or sells a security with payment and delivery taking place in the future. The payment obligation and the interest rate are fixed at the time the Fund enters into the commitment. No income accrues on such securities until the date the Fund actually takes delivery of the securities.

Preferred Shares. The Fund uses leverage in the form of Preferred Shares. Dividends on the Preferred Shares will typically be comparable to the yields on investment grade short-term municipal securities, although the assets attributable to the Preferred Shares will generally be invested in longer-term municipal securities, which typically have higher yields than short-term municipal securities. Assuming such a yield differential, this leveraged capital structure enables the Fund to pay a potentially higher yield on the Common Shares than similar investment companies that do not use leverage.

The Fund will generally maintain an asset coverage of the value of the Fund’s total assets, less all liabilities and indebtedness of the Fund not represented by the Preferred Shares, of 200% of the aggregate liquidation value of the Preferred Shares. The liquidation value of the Preferred Shares is their aggregate original purchase price, plus any accrued and unpaid dividends.

Portfolio Turnover. The Fund generally will not engage in the trading of securities for the purpose of realizing short-term profits, but it will adjust its portfolio as it deems advisable in view of prevailing or anticipated market conditions to accomplish the Fund’s investment objective. For example, the Fund may sell portfolio securities in anticipation of a movement in interest rates. Other than for tax purposes, frequency of portfolio turnover will not be a limiting factor if the Fund considers it advantageous to purchase or sell securities. The Fund does not anticipate that the annual portfolio turnover rate of the Fund will be in excess of 100%. A high rate of portfolio turnover involves correspondingly greater brokerage commission and transaction expenses than a lower rate, which expenses must be borne by the Fund and its Shareholders. High portfolio turnover may also result in the realization of substantial net short-term capital gains, and any distributions resulting from such gains will be taxable at ordinary income rates for federal income tax purposes.

34 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Temporary Defensive Strategy. When market conditions dictate a more defensive investment strategy, the Fund may, on a temporary basis, hold cash or invest a portion or all of its assets in high-quality, short-term municipal securities. If such municipal securities are not available or, in the judgment of the Adviser, do not afford sufficient protection against adverse market conditions, the Fund may invest in taxable instruments. Such taxable securities may include securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, other investment grade quality fixed income securities, prime commercial paper, certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances and other obligations of domestic banks, repurchase agreements and money market funds (including money market funds affiliated with the Adviser). In taking a defensive position, the Fund would temporarily not be pursuing its principal investment strategies and may not achieve its investment objective.

Zero Coupon/PIK Bonds. The Fund may invest in securities not producing immediate cash income, including zero coupon securities or pay-in-kind (“PIK”) securities, when their effective yield over comparable instruments producing cash income makes these investments attractive. PIK securities are debt securities that pay interest through the issuance of additional securities. Zero coupon securities are debt securities that do not entitle the holder to any periodic payment of interest prior to maturity or a specified date when the securities begin paying current interest. They are issued and traded at a discount from their face amounts or par value, which discount varies depending on the time remaining until cash payments begin, prevailing interest rates, liquidity of the security and the perceived credit quality of the issuer. The securities do not entitle the holder to any periodic payments of interest prior to maturity, which prevents any reinvestment of interest payments at prevailing interest rates if prevailing interest rates rise. On the other hand, because there are no periodic interest payments to be reinvested prior to maturity, zero coupon securities eliminate the reinvestment risk and may lock in a favorable rate of return to maturity if interest rates drop. In addition, the Fund would be required to distribute the income on these instruments as it accrues, even though the Fund will not receive all of the income on a current basis or in cash. Thus, the Fund may have to sell other investments, including when it may not be advisable to do so, to make income distributions to the Common Shareholders.

Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund

As with any fund investment, loss of money is a risk of investing. An investment in the Fund is not a deposit in a bank and is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. As with any managed fund, the Adviser may not be successful in selecting the best-performing securities or investment techniques, and the Fund’s performance may lag behind that of similar funds. The risks associated with an investment in the Fund can increase during times of significant market volatility.

Municipal Securities Risk. Under normal market conditions, longer-term municipal securities generally provide a higher yield than shorter-term municipal securities. The Adviser may adjust the average maturity of the Fund’s portfolio from time to time depending on its assessment of the relative yields available on securities of different maturities and its expectations of future changes in interest rates. The yields of municipal securities may move differently and adversely compared to the yields of the overall debt securities markets. Certain kinds of municipal securities are subject to specific risks that could cause a decline in the value of those securities:

Lease Obligations. Certain lease obligations contain non-appropriation clauses that provide that the governmental issuer has no obligation to make future payments under the lease or contract unless money is appropriated for that purpose by the appropriate legislative body on an annual or other periodic basis. Consequently, continued lease payments on those lease obligations containing non-appropriation clauses are dependent on future legislative actions. If these legislative actions do not occur, the holders of the lease obligation may experience difficulty in exercising their rights, including disposition of the property.

Private Activity Bonds. The issuers of private activity bonds in which the Fund may invest may be negatively impacted by conditions affecting either the general credit of the user of the private activity project or the project itself. Conditions such as regulatory and environmental restrictions and economic downturns may lower the need for these facilities and the ability of users of the project to pay for the facilities. Private activity bonds may also pay interest subject to the alternative minimum tax.

In 2011, S&P lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. to “AA+” from “AAA” with a negative outlook. Following S&P’s downgrade of the long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S., the major rating agencies have also placed many municipalities on review for potential downgrades, which could impact the market price, liquidity and volatility of the municipal securities held by the Fund in its portfolio. If the universe of municipal securities meeting the Fund’s ratings and credit quality requirements shrinks, it may be more difficult for the Fund to meet its investment objectives and the Fund’s investments may become more concentrated in fewer issues. Future downgrades by other rating agencies could have significant adverse effects on the economy generally and could result in significant adverse impacts on municipal issuers and the Fund.

Many state and municipal governments that issue securities are under significant economic and financial stress and may not be able to satisfy their obligations. In response to the national economic downturn, governmental cost burdens have been and may continue to be reallocated among federal, state and local governments. The ability of municipal issuers to make timely payments of interest and principal may be diminished during general economic downturns and as governmental cost burdens are reallocated among federal, state and local governments. Also, as a result of the downturn and related unemployment, declining income and loss of property values, many state and local governments have experienced significant reductions in revenues and consequently difficulties meeting ongoing expenses. As a result, certain of these state and local governments may have difficulty paying or default in the payment of principal or interest on their outstanding debt, may experience ratings downgrades of their debt. The taxing power of any governmental entity may be limited by provisions of state constitutions or laws and an entity’s credit will depend on many factors, including the entity’s tax base, the extent to which the entity relies on federal or state aid, and other factors which are beyond the entity’s control. In addition, laws enacted in the future by Congress or state legislatures or referenda could extend the time for payment of principal and/or interest, or impose other constraints on enforcement of such obligations or on the ability of municipalities to levy taxes.

In addition, municipalities might seek protection under the bankruptcy laws, thereby affecting the repayment of their outstanding debt. Issuers of municipal securities might seek protection under the bankruptcy laws. In the event of bankruptcy of such an issuer, holders of municipal securities could experience delays in collecting principal and interest and such holders may not be able to collect all principal and interest to which they are entitled. Certain provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code governing such bankruptcies are unclear. Further, the application of state law to municipal securities issuers could produce varying results among the states or among municipal securities issuers within a state. These uncertainties could have a significant impact on the prices of the municipal securities in which the Fund invests. The value of municipal securities generally may be affected by uncertainties in the municipal markets as a result of

35 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

legislation or litigation, including legislation or litigation that changes the taxation of municipal securities or the rights of municipal securities holders in the event of a bankruptcy. To enforce its rights in the event of a default in the payment of interest or repayment of principal, or both, the Fund may take possession of and manage the assets securing the issuer’s obligations on such securities, which may increase the Fund’s operating expenses. Any income derived from the Fund’s ownership or operation of such assets may not be tax-exempt and could jeopardize the Fund’s status as a regulated investment company under the Internal Revenue Code.

The U.S. economy may be in the process of “deleveraging,” with individuals, companies and municipalities reducing expenditures and paying down borrowings. In such event, the number of municipal borrowers and the amount of outstanding municipal securities may contract, potentially without corresponding reductions in investor demand for municipal securities. As a result, the Fund may have fewer investment alternatives, may invest in securities that it previously would have declined and may concentrate its investments in a smaller number of issuers.

Insurance Risk. Financial insurance guarantees that interest payments on a bond will be made on time and that principal will be repaid when the bond matures. Insured municipal obligations would generally be assigned a lower rating if the rating were based primarily on the credit quality of the issuer without regard to the insurance feature. If the claims-paying ability of the insurer were downgraded, the ratings on the municipal obligations it insures may also be downgraded. Insurance does not protect the Fund against losses caused by declines in a bond’s value due to a change in market conditions.

Market Risk. Market risk is the possibility that the market values of securities owned by the Fund will decline. The net asset value of the Fund will change with changes in the value of its portfolio securities, and the value of the Fund’s investments can be expected to fluctuate over time. The financial markets in general are subject to volatility and may at times experience extreme volatility and uncertainty, which may affect all investment securities, including debt securities and derivative instruments. Volatility may be greater during periods of general economic uncertainty.

Interest Rate Risk. Because the Fund invests primarily in fixed income municipal securities, the net asset value of the Fund can be expected to change as general levels of interest rates fluctuate. When interest rates decline, the value of a portfolio invested in fixed income securities generally can be expected to rise. Conversely, when interest rates rise, the value of a portfolio invested in fixed income securities generally can be expected to decline. The prices of longer term municipal securities generally are more volatile with respect to changes in interest rates than the prices of shorter term municipal securities. These risks may be greater in the current market environment because certain interest rates are near historically low levels.

Credit Risk. Credit risk refers to an issuer’s ability to make timely payments of interest and principal when due. Municipal securities, like other debt obligations, are subject to the credit risk of nonpayment. The ability of issuers of municipal securities to make timely payments of interest and principal may be adversely affected by general economic downturns and as relative governmental cost burdens are allocated and reallocated among federal, state and local governmental units. Private activity bonds used to finance projects, such as industrial development and pollution control, may also be negatively impacted by the general credit of the user of the project. Nonpayment would result in a reduction of income to the Fund, and a potential decrease in the net asset value of the Fund. The Adviser continuously monitors the issuers of securities held in the Fund.

The Fund will rely on the Adviser’s judgment, analysis and experience in evaluating the creditworthiness of an issuer. In its analysis, the Adviser may consider the credit ratings of NRSROs in evaluating securities, although the Adviser does not rely primarily on these ratings. Credit ratings of NRSROs evaluate only the safety of principal and interest payments, not the market risk. In addition, ratings are general and not absolute standards of quality, and the creditworthiness of an issuer may decline significantly before an NRSRO lowers the issuer’s rating. A rating downgrade does not require the Fund to dispose of a security.

Medium-grade obligations (for example, bonds rated BBB by S&P) possess speculative characteristics so that changes in economic conditions or other circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the issuer to make principal and interest payments than in the case of higher-rated securities. Securities rated below investment grade are considered speculative by NRSROs with respect to the issuer’s continuing ability to pay interest and principal.

Income Risk. The income you receive from the Fund is based primarily on prevailing interest rates, which can vary widely over the short and long term. If interest rates decrease, your income from the Fund may decrease as well.

Call Risk. If interest rates fall, it is possible that issuers of securities with high interest rates will prepay or call their securities before their maturity dates. In this event, the proceeds from the called securities would likely be reinvested by the Fund in securities bearing the new, lower interest rates, resulting in a possible decline in the Fund’s income and distributions to shareholders.

Market Segment Risk. The Fund generally considers investments in municipal securities issued by governments or political subdivisions not to be subject to industry concentration policies (because such issuers are not in any industry). The Fund may, however, invest in municipal securities issued by entities having similar characteristics. For example, the issuers may be located in the same geographic area or may pay their interest obligations from revenue of similar projects, such as hospitals, airports, utility systems and housing finance agencies. This may make the Fund’s investments more susceptible to similar economic, political or regulatory occurrences, which could increase the volatility of the Fund’s net asset value. The Fund may invest more than 25% of its total assets in a segment of the municipal securities market with similar characteristics if the Adviser determines that the yields available from obligations in a particular segment justify the additional risks of a larger investment in that segment. The Fund may not, however, invest more than 25% of its total assets in municipal securities, such as many private activity bonds or industrial development revenue bonds, issued for non-governmental entities that are in the same industry.

The Fund has no policy limiting its investments in municipal securities whose issuers are located in the same state. If the Fund were to invest a significant portion of its total assets in issuers located in the same state, it would be more susceptible to adverse economic, business or regulatory conditions in that state.

Tax Risk. To qualify for the favorable U.S. federal income tax treatment generally accorded to regulated investment companies, among other things, the Fund must derive in each taxable year at least 90% of its gross income from certain prescribed sources. If for any taxable year the Fund does not qualify as a regulated investment company, all of its taxable income (including its net capital gain) would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates without any deduction for distributions to shareholders, and all distributions from the Fund (including underlying distributions attributable to tax exempt interest income) would be taxable to shareholders as ordinary dividends to the extent of the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits.

The value of the Fund’s investments and its net asset value may be adversely affected by changes in tax rates and policies. Because interest income from municipal securities is normally not subject to regular federal income taxation, the attractiveness of municipal securities in relation to other investment alternatives is affected by changes in federal income tax rates or changes in the tax-exempt status of interest income from municipal securities. Any proposed or actual changes in such rates or exempt status, therefore, can significantly affect the demand for and supply, liquidity and marketability of municipal securities.

36 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

This could in turn affect the Fund’s net asset value and ability to acquire and dispose of municipal securities at desirable yield and price levels. Additionally, the Fund may not be a suitable investment for individual retirement accounts, for other tax-exempt or tax-deferred accounts or for investors who are not sensitive to the federal income tax consequences of their investments.

The Fund may invest all or a substantial portion of its total assets in municipal securities subject to the federal alternative minimum tax. Accordingly, an investment in the Fund could cause shareholders to be subject to (or result in an increased liability under) the federal alternative minimum tax. As a result, the Fund may not be a suitable investment for investors who are already subject to the federal alternative minimum tax or who could become subject to the federal alternative minimum tax as a result of an investment in the Fund.

Subsequent to the Fund’s acquisition of a municipal security, the security may be determined to pay, or to have paid, taxable income. As a result, the treatment of dividends previously paid or to be paid by the Fund as “exempt-interest dividends” could be adversely affected, subjecting the Fund’s shareholders to increased federal income tax liabilities.

For federal income tax purposes, distributions of ordinary taxable income (including any net short-term capital gain) will be taxable to shareholders as ordinary income (and not eligible for favorable taxation as “qualified dividend income”), and capital gain dividends will be taxed at long-term capital gain rates. In certain circumstances, the Fund will make payments to holders of Preferred Shares to offset the tax effects of a taxable distribution.

Generally, to the extent the Fund’s distributions are derived from interest on municipal securities of a particular state (and, in some cases qualifying obligations of U.S. territories and possessions), its distributions are exempt from the personal income tax of that state. In some cases, the Fund’s shares may (to the extent applicable) also be exempt from personal property taxes of such state. However, some states require that the Fund meet certain thresholds with respect to the portion of its portfolio consisting of municipal securities of such state in order for such exemption to apply.

Risks of Using Derivative Instruments. A derivative instrument often has risks similar to its underlying instrument and may have additional risks, including imperfect correlation between the value of the derivative and the underlying instrument or instrument being hedged, risks of default by the other party to certain transactions, magnification of losses incurred due to changes in the market value of the securities, instruments, indices or interest rates to which they relate, and risks that the derivatives may not be liquid. The use of derivatives involves risks that are different from, and potentially greater than, the risks associated with other portfolio investments. Derivatives may involve the use of highly specialized instruments that require investment techniques and risk analyses different from those associated with other portfolio investments. Certain derivative transactions may give rise to a form of leverage. Leverage associated with derivative transactions may cause the Fund to liquidate portfolio positions when it may not be advantageous to do so to satisfy its obligations or to meet earmarking or segregation requirements, pursuant to applicable SEC rules and regulations, or may cause the Fund to be more volatile than if the Fund had not been leveraged. The Fund could suffer losses related to its derivative positions as a result of unanticipated market movements, which losses may potentially be unlimited. Although the Adviser may seek to use derivatives to further the Fund’s investment objective, the Fund is not required to use derivatives and may choose not to do so and there is no assurance that the use of derivatives will achieve this result.

Counterparty Risk. The Fund will be subject to credit risk with respect to the counterparties to the derivative transactions entered into by the Fund. If a counterparty becomes bankrupt or otherwise fails to perform its obligations under a derivative contract due to financial difficulties, the Fund may experience significant delays in obtaining any recovery under the derivative contract in bankruptcy or other reorganization proceeding. The Fund may obtain only a limited recovery or may obtain no recovery in such circumstances.

Futures Risk. A decision as to whether, when and how to use futures involves the exercise of skill and judgment and even a well-conceived futures transaction may be unsuccessful because of market behavior or unexpected events. In addition to the derivatives risks discussed above, the prices of futures can be highly volatile, using futures can lower total return, and the potential loss from futures can exceed the Fund’s initial investment in such contracts.

Swaps Risk. Swap agreements are not entered into or traded on exchanges and there is no central clearing or guaranty function for swaps. Therefore, swaps are subject to credit risk or the risk of default or non-performance by the counterparty. Swaps could result in losses if interest rate or credit quality changes are not correctly anticipated by the Fund or if the reference index, security or investments do not perform as expected.

Tax Risk. The use of derivatives may generate taxable income. In addition, the Fund’s use of derivatives may be limited by the requirements for taxation as a regulated investment company or the Fund’s intention to pay dividends that are exempt from federal income taxes. The tax treatment of derivatives may be adversely affected by changes in legislation, regulations or other legal authority, subjecting the Fund’s shareholders to increased federal income tax liabilities.

Inverse Floating Rate Obligations Risk. Like most other fixed-income securities, the value of inverse floating rate obligations will decrease as interest rates increase. They are more volatile, however, than most other fixed-income securities because the coupon rate on an inverse floating rate obligation typically changes at a multiple of the change in the relevant index rate. Thus, any rise in the index rate (as a consequence of an increase in interest rates) causes a correspondingly greater drop in the coupon rate of an inverse floating rate obligation while a drop in the index rate causes a correspondingly greater increase in the coupon of an inverse floating rate obligation. Some inverse floating rate obligations may also increase or decrease substantially because of changes in the rate of prepayments. Inverse floating rate obligations tend to underperform the market for fixed rate bonds in a rising interest rate environment, but tend to outperform the market for fixed rate bonds when interest rates decline or remain relatively stable. Inverse floating rate obligations have varying degrees of liquidity.

The Fund generally invests in inverse floating rate obligations that include embedded leverage, thus exposing the Fund to greater risks and increased costs. The market value of a “leveraged” inverse floating rate obligations generally will fluctuate in response to changes in market rates of interest to a greater extent than the value of an unleveraged investment. The extent of increases and decreases in the value of inverse floating rate obligations generally will be larger than changes in an equal principal amount of a fixed rate security having similar credit quality, redemption provisions and maturity, which may cause the Fund’s net asset value to be more volatile than if it had not invested in inverse floating rate obligations.

In certain instances, the short-term floating rate interests created by a special purpose trust may not be able to be sold to third parties or, in the case of holders tendering (or putting) such interests for repayment of principal, may not be able to be remarketed to third parties. In such cases, the special purpose trust holding the long-term fixed rate bonds may be collapsed. In the case of inverse floating rate obligations created by the Fund, the Fund would then be required to repay the principal amount of the tendered securities. During times of market volatility, illiquidity or uncertainty, the Fund could be required to sell other portfolio holdings at a disadvantageous time to raise cash to meet that obligation.

37 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

The use of short-term floating rate obligations may require the Fund to segregate or earmark cash or liquid assets to cover its obligations. Securities so segregated or earmarked will be unavailable for sale by the Fund (unless replaced by other securities qualifying for segregation requirements), which may limit the Fund’s flexibility and may require that the Fund sell other portfolio investments at a time when it may be disadvantageous to sell such assets.

Risks of Investing in Lower-Grade Securities. Securities that are in the lower-grade categories generally offer higher yields than are offered by higher-grade securities of similar maturities, but they also generally involve greater risks, such as greater credit risk, market risk, volatility and liquidity risk. In addition, the amount of available information about the financial condition of certain lower-grade issuers may be less extensive than other issuers, making the Fund more dependent on the Adviser’s credit analysis than a fund investing only in higher-grade securities. To minimize the risks involved in investing in lower-grade securities, the Fund does not purchase securities that are in default or rated in categories lower than B- by S&P or B3 by Moody’s or unrated securities of comparable quality.

Secondary market prices of lower-grade securities generally are less sensitive than higher-grade securities to changes in interest rates and are more sensitive to general adverse economic changes or specific developments with respect to the particular issuers. A significant increase in interest rates or a general economic downturn may significantly affect the ability of municipal issuers of lower-grade securities to pay interest and to repay principal, or to obtain additional financing, any of which could severely disrupt the market for lower-grade municipal securities and adversely affect the market value of such securities. Such events also could lead to a higher incidence of default by issuers of lower-grade securities. In addition, changes in credit risks, interest rates, the credit markets or periods of general economic uncertainty can be expected to result in increased volatility in the price of the lower-grade securities and the net asset value of the Fund. Adverse publicity and investor perceptions, whether or not based on rational analysis, may affect the value, volatility and liquidity of lower-grade securities.

In the event that an issuer of securities held by the Fund experiences difficulties in the timely payment of principal and interest and such issuer seeks to restructure the terms of its borrowings, the Fund may incur additional expenses and may determine to invest additional assets with respect to such issuer or the project or projects to which the Fund’s securities relate. Further, the Fund may incur additional expenses to the extent that it is required to seek recovery upon a default in the payment of interest or the repayment of principal on its portfolio holdings and the Fund may be unable to obtain full recovery on such amounts.

Investments in debt obligations that are at risk of or in default present special tax issues for the Fund. Federal income tax rules are not entirely clear about issues such as when the Fund may cease to accrue interest, original issue discount or market discount, when and to what extent deductions may be taken for bad debts or worthless securities, how payments received on obligations in default should be allocated between principal and interest and whether certain exchanges of debt obligations in a workout context are taxable. These and other issues will be addressed by the Fund, in the event it invests in or holds such securities, in order to seek to ensure that it distributes sufficient income to preserve its status as a regulated investment company.

Liquidity Risk. Liquidity relates to the ability of a fund to sell a security in a timely manner at a price which reflects the value of that security. The amount of available information about the financial condition of municipal securities issuers is generally less extensive than that for corporate issuers with publicly traded securities, and the market for municipal securities is generally considered to be less liquid than the market for corporate debt obligations. Certain municipal securities in which the Fund may invest, such as special obligation bonds, lease obligations, participation certificates and variable rate instruments, may be particularly less liquid. To the extent the Fund owns or may acquire illiquid or restricted securities, these securities may involve special registration requirements, liabilities and costs, and liquidity and valuation difficulties.

The effects of adverse publicity and investor perceptions may be more pronounced for securities for which no established retail market exists as compared with the effects on securities for which such a market does exist. An economic downturn or an increase in interest rates could severely disrupt the market for such securities and adversely affect the value of outstanding securities or the ability of the issuers to repay principal and interest. Further, the Fund may have more difficulty selling such securities in a timely manner and at their stated value than would be the case for securities for which an established retail market does exist.

The markets for lower-grade securities may be less liquid than the markets for higher-grade securities. To the extent that there is no established retail market for some of the lower-grade securities in which the Fund may invest, trading in such securities may be relatively inactive. Prices of lower-grade securities may decline rapidly in the event a significant number of holders decide to sell. Changes in expectations regarding an individual issuer of lower-grade securities generally could reduce market liquidity for such securities and make their sale by the Fund at their current valuation more difficult.

From time to time, the Fund’s investments may include securities as to which the Fund, by itself or together with other funds or accounts managed by the Adviser, holds a major portion or all of an issue of municipal securities. Because there may be relatively few potential purchasers for such investments and, in some cases, there may be contractual restrictions on resales, the Fund may find it more difficult to sell such securities at a time when the Adviser believes it is advisable to do so.

Preferred Shares Risk. The Fund’s use of leverage through Preferred Shares may result in higher volatility of the net asset value of the Common Shares, and fluctuations in the dividend rates on the Preferred Shares (which are expected to reflect yields on short-term municipal securities) may affect the yield to the Common Shareholders. So long as the Fund is able to realize a higher net return on its investment portfolio than the then current dividend rate of the Preferred Shares, the effect of the leverage provided by the Preferred Shares will be to cause the Common Shareholders to realize a higher current rate of return than if the Fund were not so leveraged. On the other hand, to the extent that the then current dividend rate on the Preferred Shares approaches the net return on the Fund’s investment portfolio, the benefit of leverage to the Common Shareholders will be reduced, and if the then current dividend rate on the Preferred Shares were to exceed the net return on the Fund’s portfolio, the Fund’s leveraged capital structure would result in a lower rate of return to the Common Shareholders than if the Fund were not so structured.

Similarly, because any decline in the net asset value of the Fund’s investments will be borne entirely by the Common Shareholders, the effect of leverage in a declining market would result in a greater decrease in net asset value to the Common Shareholders than if the Fund were not so leveraged. Any such decrease would likely be reflected in a decline in the market price for Common Shares. If the Fund’s current investment income were not sufficient to meet dividend requirements on the Preferred Shares, the Fund might have to liquidate certain of its investments in order to meet required dividend payments, thereby reducing the net asset value attributable to the Fund’s Common Shares.

38 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

The amount of Preferred Shares outstanding from time to time may vary, depending on the Adviser’s analysis of conditions in the municipal securities market and interest rate movements. Management of the amount of outstanding Preferred Shares places greater reliance on the ability of the Adviser to predict trends in interest rates than if the Fund did not use leverage. In the event the Adviser later determines that all or a portion of such Preferred Shares should be reissued so as to increase the amount of leverage, no assurance can be given that the Fund will subsequently be able to reissue Preferred Shares on terms and/or with dividend rates that are beneficial to the Common Shareholders. Further, redemption and reissuance of the Preferred Shares, and any related trading of the Fund’s portfolio securities, results in increased transaction costs to the Fund and its Common Shareholders. Because the Common Shareholders bear these expenses, changes to the Fund’s outstanding leverage and any losses resulting from related portfolio trading will have a proportionately larger impact on the Common Shares’ net asset value and market price.

In addition, the Fund is not permitted to declare any cash dividend or other distribution on its Common Shares unless, at the time of such declaration, the Fund has an asset coverage of at least 200% (determined after deducting the amount of such dividend or distribution). This prohibition on the payment of dividends or other distributions might impair the ability of the Fund to maintain its qualification as a regulated investment company for federal income tax purposes. The Fund intends, however, to the extent possible, to purchase or redeem Preferred Shares from time to time to maintain an asset coverage of the Preferred Shares of at least 200%.

If a determination were made by the IRS to treat the Preferred Shares as debt rather than equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the Common Shareholders might be subject to increased federal income tax liabilities.

Unrated Securities Risk. Many lower-grade securities are not listed for trading on any national securities exchange, and many issuers of lower-grade securities choose not to have a rating assigned to their obligations by any NRSRO. As a result, the Fund’s portfolio may consist of a higher portion of unlisted or unrated securities as compared with an investment company that invests solely in higher-grade, listed securities. Unrated securities are usually not as attractive to as many buyers as are rated securities, a factor which may make unrated securities less marketable. These factors may limit the ability of the Fund to sell such securities at their fair value. The Fund may be more reliant on the Adviser’s judgment and analysis in evaluating the creditworthiness of an issuer of unrated securities.

When-Issued and Delayed Delivery Risks. When-issued and delayed delivery transactions are subject to market risk as the value or yield of a security at delivery may be more or less than the purchase price or the yield generally available on securities when delivery occurs. In addition, the Fund is subject to counterparty risk because it relies on the buyer or seller, as the case may be, to consummate the transaction, and failure by the other party to complete the transaction may result in the Fund missing the opportunity of obtaining a price or yield considered to be advantageous.

Zero Coupon/PIK Bond Risk. Prices on non-cash-paying instruments may be more sensitive to changes in the issuer’s financial condition, fluctuations in interest rates and market demand/supply imbalances than cash-paying securities with similar credit ratings, and thus may be more speculative than are securities that pay interest periodically in cash. These securities may subject the Fund to greater market risk than a fund that does not own these types of securities. Special tax considerations are associated with investing in non-cash-paying instruments, such as zero coupon or PIK securities. The Adviser will weigh these concerns against the expected total returns from such instruments.

39 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Trustees and Officers

The address of each trustee and officer is 1555 Peachtree, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Generally, each trustee serves for a three year term or until his or her successor has been duly elected and qualified, and each officer serves for a one year term or until his or her successor has been duly elected and qualified. Column two below includes length of time served with predecessor entities, if any.


			Number of
			Funds in
			Fund Complex
Name, Year of Birth and	Trustee and/	Principal Occupation(s)	Overseen by	Other Directorship(s)
Position(s) Held with the Fund	or Officer Since	During Past 5 Years	Trustee	Held by Trustee



Interested Persons



Colin Meadows — 1971 Trustee, President and Principal Executive Officer	2010	Chief Administrative Officer, Invesco Advisers, Inc., since 2006; Prior to 2006, Senior Vice President of business development and mergers and acquisitions at GE Consumer Finance; Prior to 2005, Senior Vice President of strategic planning and technology at Wells Fargo Bank; From 1996 to 2003, associate principal with McKinsey & Company, focusing on the financial services and venture capital industries, with emphasis in banking and asset management sectors.	18	None



Wayne W. Whalen¹ — 1939 Trustee and Chair	1992	Of Counsel, and prior to 2010, partner in the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, legal counsel to funds in the Fund Complex	158	Director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation



Independent Trustees



David C. Arch — 1945 Trustee	1992	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Blistex Inc., a consumer health care products manufacturer.	158	Member of the Heartland Alliance Advisory Board, a nonprofit organization serving human needs based in Chicago. Board member of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association. Member of the Board of Visitors, Institute for the Humanities, University of Michigan



Jerry D. Choate — 1938 Trustee	2003	From 1995 to 1999, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Allstate Corporation (“Allstate”) and Allstate Insurance Company. From 1994 to 1995, President and Chief Executive Officer of Allstate. Prior to 1994, various management positions at Allstate.	18	Trustee/Director/Managing General Partner of funds in the Fund Complex. Director since 1998 and member of the governance and nominating committee, executive committee, compensation and management development committee and equity award committee, of Amgen Inc., a biotechnological company. Director since 1999 and member of the nominating and governance committee and compensation and executive committee, of Valero Energy Corporation, a crude oil refining and marketing company. Previously, from 2006 to 2007, Director and member of the compensation committee and audit committee, of H&R Block, a tax preparation services company.



Rodney F. Dammeyer — 1940 Trustee	1992	Chairman of CAC, LLC, a private company offering capital investment and management advisory services. Formerly: Prior to January 2004, Director of TeleTech Holdings Inc.; Prior to 2002, Director of Arris Group, Inc.; Prior to 2001, Managing Partner at Equity Group Corporate Investments. Prior to 1995, Vice Chairman of Anixter International. Prior to 1985, experience includes Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Household International, Inc, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Northwest Industries, Inc. and Partner of Arthur Andersen & Co.	158	Director of Quidel Corporation and Stericycle, Inc. Prior to May 2008, Trustee of The Scripps Research Institute. Prior to February 2008, Director of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. Prior to April 2007, Director of GATX Corporation. Prior to April 2004, Director of TheraSense, Inc.



Linda Hutton Heagy — 1948 Trustee	2003	Prior to June 2008, Managing Partner of Heidrick & Struggles, the second largest global executive search firm, and from 2001-2004, Regional Managing Director of U.S. operations at Heidrick & Struggles. Prior to 1997, Managing Partner of Ray & Berndtson, Inc., an executive recruiting firm. Prior to 1995, Executive Vice President of ABN AMRO, N.A., a bank holding company, with oversight for treasury management operations including all non-credit product pricing. Prior to 1990, experience includes Executive Vice President of The Exchange National Bank with oversight of treasury management including capital markets operations, Vice President of Northern Trust Company and an Associate at Price Waterhouse.	18	Trustee/Director/Managing General Partner of funds in the Fund Complex. Prior to 2010, Trustee on the University of Chicago Medical Center Board, Vice Chair of the Board of the YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago and a member of the Women’s Board of the University of Chicago.



R. Craig Kennedy — 1952 Trustee	2003	Director and President of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, an independent U.S. foundation created to deepen understanding, promote collaboration and stimulate exchanges of practical experience between Americans and Europeans. Formerly, advisor to the Dennis Trading Group Inc., a managed futures and option company that invests money for individuals and institutions. Prior to 1992, President and Chief Executive Officer, Director and member of the Investment Committee of the Joyce Foundation, a private foundation.	18	Trustee/Director/Managing General Partner of funds in the Fund Complex. Director of First Solar, Inc.


¹	Mr. Whalen is considered an “interested person” (within the meaning of Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act) of certain Funds in the Fund Complex by reason of he and his firm currently providing legal services as legal counsel to such Funds in the Fund Complex.

T-1 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Trustees and Officers—(continued)


			Number of
			Funds in
			Fund Complex
Name, Year of Birth and	Trustee and/	Principal Occupation(s)	Overseen by	Other Directorship(s)
Position(s) Held with the Fund	or Officer Since	During Past 5 Years	Trustee	Held by Trustee



Independent Trustees



Howard J Kerr — 1935 Trustee	1992	Retired. Previous member of the City Council and Mayor of Lake Forest, Illinois from 1988 through 2002. Previous business experience from 1981 through 1996 includes President and Chief Executive Officer of Pocklington Corporation, Inc., an investment holding company, President and Chief Executive Officer of Grabill Aerospace, and President of Custom Technologies Corporation. United States Naval Officer from 1960 through 1981, with responsibilities including Commanding Officer of United States Navy destroyers and Commander of United States Navy Destroyer Squadron Thirty-Three, White House experience in 1973 through 1975 as military aide to Vice Presidents Agnew and Ford and Naval Aid to President Ford, and Military Fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations in 1978-through 1979.	18	Trustee/Director/Managing General Partner of funds in the Fund Complex. Director of the Lake Forest Bank & Trust. Director of the Marrow Foundation.



Jack E. Nelson — 1936 Trustee	2003	President of Nelson Investment Planning Services, Inc., a financial planning company and registered investment adviser in the State of Florida. President of Nelson Ivest Brokerage Services Inc., a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), Securities Investors Protection Corp. and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. President of Nelson Sales and Services Corporation, a marketing and services company to support affiliated companies.	18	Trustee/Director/Managing General Partner of funds in the Fund Complex.



Hugo F. Sonnenschein — 1940 Trustee	1994	Distinguished Service Professor and President Emeritus of the University of Chicago and the Adam Smith Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago. Prior to July 2000, President of the University of Chicago.	158	Trustee of the University of Rochester and a member of its investment committee. Member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences



Suzanne H. Woolsey, Ph.D. — 1941 Trustee	2003	Chief Communications Officer of the National Academy of Sciences and Engineering and Institute of Medicine/National Research Council, an independent, federally chartered policy institution, from 2001 to November 2003 and Chief Operating Officer from 1993 to 2001. Executive Director of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education at the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council from 1989 to 1993. Prior to 1980, experience includes Partner of Coopers & Lybrand (from 1980 to 1989), Associate Director of the US Office of Management and Budget (from 1977 to 1980) and Program Director of the Urban Institute (from 1975 to 1977).	18	Trustee/Director/Managing General Partner of funds in the Fund Complex. Independent Director and audit committee chairperson of Changing World Technologies, Inc., an energy manufacturing company, since July 2008. Independent Director and member of audit and governance committees of Fluor Corp., a global engineering, construction and management company, since January 2004. Director of Intelligent Medical Devices, Inc., a private company which develops symptom-based diagnostic tools for viral respiratory infections. Advisory Board member of ExactCost LLC, a private company providing activity-based costing for hospitals, laboratories, clinics, and physicians, since 2008. Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded research and development center, since 2000. Trustee from 1992 to 2000 and 2002 to present, current chairperson of the finance committee, current member of the audit committee, strategic growth committee and executive committee, and former Chairperson of the Board of Trustees (from 1997 to 1999), of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a public foundation. Lead Independent Trustee of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a non-profit energy and environmental institute; Trustee since 2004. Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Colorado College; Trustee since 1995. Trustee of California Institute of Technology. Previously, Independent Director and member of audit committee and governance committee of Neutrogena Corporation from 1998 to 2006; and Independent Director of Arbros Communications from 2000 to 2002

T-2 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Trustees and Officers—(continued)


			Number of
			Funds in
			Fund Complex
Name, Year of Birth and	Trustee and/	Principal Occupation(s)	Overseen by	Other Directorship(s)
Position(s) Held with the Fund	or Officer Since	During Past 5 Years	Trustee	Held by Trustee



Other Officers



John M. Zerr — 1962 Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary	2010	Director, Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Invesco Management Group, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Aim Management Group, Inc.) and Van Kampen Exchange Corp.; Senior Vice President, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc.) (registered investment adviser); Senior Vice President and Secretary, Invesco Distributors, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Aim Distributors, Inc.); Director, Vice President and Secretary, Invesco Investment Services, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Aim Investment Services, Inc.) and IVZ Distributors, Inc. (formerly known as INVESCO Distributors, Inc.); Director and Vice President, INVESCO Funds Group, Inc.; Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, The Invesco Funds; Manager, Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC; Director, Secretary and General Counsel, Invesco Investment Advisers LLC (formerly known as Van Kampen Asset Management); Secretary and General Counsel, Van Kampen Funds Inc. and Chief Legal Officer, PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II, PowerShares India Exchange-Traded Fund Trust and PowerShares Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust	N/A	N/A
		Formerly: Director and Secretary, Van Kampen Advisors Inc.; Director Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel Van Kampen Investor Services Inc.; Director, Invesco Distributors, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Aim Distributors, Inc.); Director, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Invesco Advisers, Inc.; and Van Kampen Investments Inc.; Director, Vice President and Secretary, Fund Management Company; Director, Senior Vice President, Secretary, General Counsel and Vice President, Invesco Aim Capital Management, Inc.; Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, Liberty Ridge Capital, Inc. (an investment adviser); Vice President and Secretary, PBHG Funds (an investment company) and PBHG Insurance Series Fund (an investment company); Chief Operating Officer, General Counsel and Secretary, Old Mutual Investment Partners (a broker-dealer); General Counsel and Secretary, Old Mutual Fund Services (an administrator) and Old Mutual Shareholder Services (a shareholder servicing center); Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Old Mutual Capital, Inc. (an investment adviser); and Vice President and Secretary, Old Mutual Advisors Funds (an investment company)



Karen Dunn Kelley — 1960 Vice President	2010	Head of Invesco’s World Wide Fixed Income and Cash Management Group; Senior Vice President, Invesco Management Group, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Aim Management Group, Inc.) and Invesco Advisers, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc.) (registered investment adviser); Executive Vice President, Invesco Distributors, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Aim Distributors, Inc.); Director, Invesco Mortgage Capital Inc.; Vice President, The Invesco Funds (other than AIM Treasurer’s Series Trust (Invesco Treasurer’s Series Trust) and Short-Term Investments Trust); and President and Principal Executive Officer, The Invesco Funds (AIM Treasurer’s Series Trust (Invesco Treasurer’s Series Trust) and Short-Term Investments Trust only).	N/A	N/A
		Formerly: Senior Vice President, Van Kampen Investments Inc.; Vice President, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc.); Director of Cash Management and Senior Vice President, Invesco Advisers, Inc. and Invesco Aim Capital Management, Inc.; President and Principal Executive Officer, Tax-Free Investments Trust; Director and President, Fund Management Company; Chief Cash Management Officer, Director of Cash Management, Senior Vice President, and Managing Director, Invesco Aim Capital Management, Inc.; Director of Cash Management, Senior Vice President, and Vice President, Invesco Advisers, Inc. and The Invesco Funds (AIM Treasurer’s Series Trust (Invesco Treasurer’s Series Trust), Short-Term Investments Trust and Tax-Free Investments Trust only)



Sheri Morris — 1964 Vice President, Principal Financial Officer and Treasurer	2010	Vice President, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer, The Invesco Funds; Vice President, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc.) (registered investment adviser).	N/A	N/A
		Formerly: Treasurer, PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II, PowerShares India Exchange-Traded Fund Trust and PowerShares Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Vice President, Invesco Advisers, Inc., Invesco Aim Capital Management, Inc. and Invesco Aim Private Asset Management, Inc.; Assistant Vice President and Assistant Treasurer, The Invesco Funds and Assistant Vice President, Invesco Advisers, Inc., Invesco Aim Capital Management, Inc. and Invesco Aim Private Asset Management, Inc.

T-3 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Trustees and Officers—(continued)


			Number of
			Funds in
			Fund Complex
Name, Year of Birth and	Trustee and/	Principal Occupation(s)	Overseen by	Other Directorship(s)
Position(s) Held with the Fund	or Officer Since	During Past 5 Years	Trustee	Held by Trustee




Other Officers



Yinka Akinsola — 1977 Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer	2012	Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc.) (registered investment adviser); Invesco Distributors, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Aim Distributors, Inc.), Invesco Investment Services, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Aim Investment Services, Inc.), The Invesco Funds, Invesco Van Kampen Closed-End Funds, Van Kampen Funds Inc., PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II, PowerShares India Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, and PowerShares Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust	N/A	N/A



Valinda Arnett-Patton — 1959 Chief Compliance Officer	2011	Chief Compliance Officer, Invesco Van Kampen Closed-End Funds.	N/A	N/A

T-4 Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Correspondence information

Send general correspondence to Computershare, P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078.

Invesco privacy policy

You share personal and financial information with us that is necessary for your transactions and your account records. We take very seriously the obligation to keep that information confidential and private.

Invesco collects nonpublic personal information about you from account applications or other forms you complete and from your transactions with us or our affiliates. We do not disclose information about you or our former customers to service providers or other third parties except to the extent necessary to service your account and in other limited circumstances as permitted by law. For example, we use this information to facilitate the delivery of transaction confirmations, financial reports, prospectuses and tax forms.

Even within Invesco, only people involved in the servicing of your accounts and compliance monitoring have access to your information. To ensure the highest level of confidentiality and security, Invesco maintains physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that meet or exceed federal standards. Special measures, such as data encryption and authentication, apply to your communications with us on our website. More detail is available to you at invesco.com/privacy.

Trust holdings and proxy voting information

The Trust provides a complete list of its holdings four times in each fiscal year, at the quarter-ends. For the second and fourth quarters, the lists appear in the Trust’s semiannual and annual reports to shareholders. For the first and third quarters, the Trust files the lists with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Form N-Q. Shareholders can also look up the Trust’s Forms N-Q on the SEC website at sec.gov. Copies of the Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the SEC Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. You can obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room, including information about duplicating fee charges, by calling 202 551 8090 or 800 732 0330, or by electronic request at the following email address: publicinfo@sec.gov. The SEC file number for the Trust is 811-06567.

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, from our Client Services department at 800 341 2929 or at invesco.com/proxyguidelines. The information is also available on the SEC website, sec.gov.

Information regarding how the Trust voted proxies related to its portfolio securities during the 12 months ended June 30, 2011, is available at invesco.com/proxysearch. In addition, this information is available on the SEC website at sec.gov.

Invesco Advisers, Inc. is an investment adviser; it provides investment advisory services to individual and institutional clients and does not sell securities. Invesco Distributors, Inc. is the U.S. distributor for Invesco Ltd.’s retail mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and institutional money market funds. Both are wholly owned, indirect subsidiaries of Invesco Ltd.


		VK-CE-MOPP-AR-1		Invesco Distributors, Inc.

ITEM 2. CODE OF ETHICS.

As of the end of the period covered by this report, the Registrant had adopted a code of ethics (the “Code”) that applies to the Registrant’s principal executive officer (“PEO”) and principal financial officer (“PFO”). There were no amendments to the Code during the period covered by the report. The Registrant did not grant any waivers, including implicit waivers, from any provisions of the Code to the PEO or PFO during the period covered by this report.

ITEM 3. AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.

The Board of Trustees has determined that the Registrant has at least one audit committee financial expert serving on its Audit Committee. The Audit Committee financial experts are Jerry D. Choate, Linda Hutton Heagy and R. Craig Kennedy. Jerry D. Choate, Linda Hutton Heagy and R. Craig Kennedy are “independent” within the meaning of that term as used in Form N-CSR.

ITEM 4. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.

Fees Billed by PWC Related to the Registrant

PWC billed the Registrant aggregate fees for services rendered to the Registrant for the last two fiscal years as follows:


			Percentage of Fees					Percentage of Fees
			Billed Applicable to					Billed Applicable to
			Non-Audit Services					Non-Audit Services
	Fees Billed for		Provided for fiscal			Fees Billed for		Provided for fiscal
	Services Rendered to		year end 2/29/2012			Services Rendered to		year end 2/28/2011
	the Registrant for		Pursuant to Waiver of			the Registrant for		Pursuant to Waiver of
	fiscal year end		Pre-Approval			fiscal year end		Pre-Approval
	2/29/2012		Requirement¹			2/28/2011		Requirement¹
Audit Fees	$	36,300		N/A		$	19,250		N/A
Audit-Related Fees²	$	5,000		0	%	$	4,000		0	%
Tax Fees³	$	5,900		0	%	$	2,300		0	%
All Other Fees⁴	$	0		0	%	$	1,667		0	%

Total Fees	$	47,200		0	%	$	27,217		0	%

PWC billed the Registrant aggregate non-audit fees of $10,900 for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012, and $7,967 for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011, for non-audit services rendered to the Registrant.


1		With respect to the provision of non-audit services, the pre-approval requirement is waived pursuant to a de minimis exception if (i) such services were not recognized as non-audit services by the Registrant at the time of engagement, (ii) the aggregate amount of all such services provided is no more than 5% of the aggregate audit and non-audit fees paid by the Registrant to PWC during a fiscal year; and (iii) such services are promptly brought to the attention of the Registrant’s Audit Committee and approved by the Registrant’s Audit Committee prior to the completion of the audit.

2		Audit-Related fees for the fiscal year end February 29, 2012 includes fees billed for agreed upon procedures related to auction rate preferred securities. Audit-Related fees for the fiscal year end February 28, 2011 includes fees billed for agreed upon procedures related to auction rate preferred securities.

3		Tax fees for the fiscal year end February 29, 2012 includes fees billed for reviewing tax returns. Tax fees for the fiscal year end February 28, 2011 includes fees billed for reviewing tax returns.

4		All Other fees for the fiscal year end February 28, 2011 includes fees billed for completing professional services related to benchmark analysis.

Fees Billed by PWC Related to Invesco and Invesco Affiliates

PWC billed Invesco Advisers, Inc. (“Invesco”), the Registrant’s adviser, and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with Invesco that provides ongoing services to the Registrant (“Invesco Affiliates”) aggregate fees for pre-approved non-audit services rendered to Invesco and Invesco Affiliates for the last two fiscal years as follows:


	Fees Billed for Non-					Fees Billed for Non-
	Audit Services					Audit Services
	Rendered to Invesco		Percentage of Fees			Rendered to Invesco		Percentage of Fees
	and Invesco Affiliates		Billed Applicable to			and Invesco Affiliates		Billed Applicable to
	for fiscal year end		Non-Audit Services			for fiscal year end		Non-Audit Services
	2/29/2012 That Were		Provided for fiscal year			2/28/2011 That Were		Provided for fiscal year
	Required		end 2/29/2012			Required		end 2/28/2011
	to be Pre-Approved		Pursuant to Waiver of			to be Pre-Approved		Pursuant to Waiver of
	by the Registrant’s		Pre-Approval			by the Registrant’s		Pre-Approval
	Audit Committee		Requirement⁽¹⁾			Audit Committee		Requirement⁽¹⁾
Audit-Related Fees	$	0		0	%	$	0		0	%
Tax Fees	$	0		0	%	$	0		0	%
All Other Fees	$	0		0	%	$	0		0	%

Total Fees⁽²⁾	$	0		0	%	$	0		0	%


1		With respect to the provision of non-audit services, the pre-approval requirement is waived pursuant to a de minimis exception if (i) such services were not recognized as non-audit services by the Registrant at the time of engagement, (ii) the aggregate amount of all such services provided is no more than 5% of the aggregate audit and non-audit fees paid by the Registrant, Invesco and Invesco Affiliates to PWC during a fiscal year; and (iii) such services are promptly brought to the attention of the Registrant’s Audit Committee and approved by the Registrant’s Audit Committee prior to the completion of the audit.

2		Including the fees for services not required to be pre-approved by the registrant’s audit committee, PWC billed Invesco and Invesco Affiliates aggregate non-audit fees of $0 for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012, and $0 for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011, for non-audit services rendered to Invesco and Invesco Affiliates.

The Audit Committee also has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to Invesco and Invesco Affiliates that were not required to be pre-approved pursuant to SEC regulations, if any, is compatible with maintaining PWC’s independence. To the extent that such services were provided, the Audit Committee determined that the provision of such services is compatible with PWC maintaining independence with respect to the Registrant.

PRE-APPROVAL OF AUDIT AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
As adopted by the Audit Committees of
the Invesco Funds (the “Funds”)

Statement of Principles

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (“Rules”), the Audit Committees of the Funds’ (the “Audit Committees”) Board of Trustees (the “Board”) are responsible for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the work of independent accountants (an “Auditor”). As part of this responsibility and to assure that the Auditor’s independence is not impaired, the Audit Committees pre-approve the audit and non-audit services provided to the Funds by each Auditor, as well as all non-audit services provided by the Auditor to the Funds’ investment adviser and to affiliates of the adviser that provide ongoing services to the Funds (“Service Affiliates”) if the services directly impact the Funds’ operations or financial reporting. The SEC Rules also specify the types of services that an Auditor may not provide to its audit client. The following policies and procedures comply with the requirements for pre-approval and provide a mechanism by which management of the Funds may request and secure pre-approval of audit and non-audit services in an orderly manner with minimal disruption to normal business operations.

Proposed services either may be pre-approved without consideration of specific case-by-case services by the Audit Committees (“general pre-approval”) or require the specific pre-approval of the Audit Committees (“specific pre-approval”). As set forth in these policies and procedures, unless a type of service has received general pre-approval, it will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committees. Additionally, any fees exceeding 110% of estimated pre-approved fee levels provided at the time the service was pre-approved will also require specific approval by the Audit Committees before payment is made. The Audit Committees will also consider the impact of additional fees on the Auditor’s independence when determining whether to approve any additional fees for previously pre-approved services.

The Audit Committees will annually review and generally pre-approve the services that may be provided by each Auditor without obtaining specific pre-approval from the Audit Committee generally on an annual basis. The term of any general pre-approval runs from the date of such pre-approval through September 30^th of the following year, unless the Audit Committees consider a different period and state otherwise. The Audit Committees will add to or subtract from the list of general pre-approved services from time to time, based on subsequent determinations.

The purpose of these policies and procedures is to set forth the guidelines to assist the Audit Committees in fulfilling their responsibilities.

Delegation

The Audit Committees may from time to time delegate pre-approval authority to one or more of its members who are Independent Trustees. All decisions to pre-approve a service by a delegated member shall be reported to the Audit Committees at the next quarterly meeting.

Audit Services

The annual audit services engagement terms will be subject to specific pre-approval of the Audit Committees. Audit services include the annual financial statement audit and other procedures such as tax provision work that is required to be performed by the independent auditor to be able to form an opinion on the Funds’ financial statements. The Audit Committees will obtain, review and consider sufficient information concerning the proposed Auditor to make a reasonable evaluation of the Auditor’s qualifications and independence.

In addition to the annual Audit services engagement, the Audit Committees may grant either general or specific pre-approval of other audit services, which are those services that only the independent auditor reasonably can provide. Other Audit services may include services such as issuing consents for the

inclusion of audited financial statements with SEC registration statements, periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or other documents issued in connection with securities offerings.

Non-Audit Services

The Audit Committees may provide either general or specific pre-approval of any non-audit services to the Funds and its Service Affiliates if the Audit Committees believe that the provision of the service will not impair the independence of the Auditor, is consistent with the SEC’s Rules on auditor independence, and otherwise conforms to the Audit Committees’ general principles and policies as set forth herein.

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 or that are traditionally performed by the independent auditor. 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; and agreed-upon procedures related to mergers, compliance with ratings agency requirements and interfund lending activities.

Tax Services

“Tax services” include, but are not limited to, the review and signing of the Funds’ federal tax returns, the review of required distributions by the Funds and consultations regarding tax matters such as the tax treatment of new investments or the impact of new regulations. The Audit Committees will scrutinize carefully the retention of the Auditor in connection with a transaction initially recommended by the Auditor, the major business purpose of which may be tax avoidance or the tax treatment of which may not be supported in the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. The Audit Committees will consult with the Funds’ Treasurer (or his or her designee) and may consult with outside counsel or advisors as necessary to ensure the consistency of Tax services rendered by the Auditor with the foregoing policy.

No Auditor shall represent any Fund or any Service Affiliate before a tax court, district court or federal court of claims.

Under rules adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and approved by the SEC, in connection with seeking Audit Committees’ pre-approval of permissible Tax services, the Auditor shall:

Describe in writing to the Audit Committees, which writing may be in the form of the proposed engagement letter:

	a.		The scope of the service, the fee structure for the engagement, and any side letter or amendment to the engagement letter, or any other agreement between the Auditor and the Fund, relating to the service; and

	b.		Any compensation arrangement or other agreement, such as a referral agreement, a referral fee or fee-sharing arrangement, between the Auditor and any person (other than the Fund) with respect to the promoting, marketing, or recommending of a transaction covered by the service;

	2.		Discuss with the Audit Committees the potential effects of the services on the independence of the Auditor; and

	3.		Document the substance of its discussion with the Audit Committees.

All Other Auditor Services

The Audit Committees may pre-approve non-audit services classified as “All other services” that are not categorically prohibited by the SEC, as listed in Exhibit 1 to this policy.

Pre-Approval Fee Levels or Established Amounts

Pre-approval of estimated fees or established amounts for services to be provided by the Auditor under general or specific pre-approval policies will be set periodically by the Audit Committees. Any proposed fees exceeding 110% of the maximum estimated pre-approved fees or established amounts for pre-approved audit and non-audit services will be reported to the Audit Committees at the quarterly Audit Committees meeting and will require specific approval by the Audit Committees before payment is made. The Audit Committees will always factor in the overall relationship of fees for audit and non-audit services in determining whether to pre-approve any such services and in determining whether to approve any additional fees exceeding 110% of the maximum pre-approved fees or established amounts for previously pre-approved services.

Procedures

Generally on an annual basis, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (“Invesco”) will submit to the Audit Committees for general pre-approval, a list of non-audit services that the Funds or Service Affiliates of the Funds may request from the Auditor. The list will describe the non-audit services in reasonable detail and will include an estimated range of fees and such other information as the Audit Committee may request.

Each request for services to be provided by the Auditor under the general pre-approval of the Audit Committees will be submitted to the Funds’ Treasurer (or his or her designee) and must include a detailed description of the services to be rendered. The Treasurer or his or her designee will ensure that such services are included within the list of services that have received the general pre-approval of the Audit Committees. The Audit Committees will be informed at the next quarterly scheduled Audit Committees meeting of any such services for which the Auditor rendered an invoice and whether such services and fees had been pre-approved and if so, by what means.

Each request to provide services that require specific approval by the Audit Committees shall be submitted to the Audit Committees jointly by the Fund’s Treasurer or his or her designee and the Auditor, and must include a joint statement that, in their view, such request is consistent with the policies and procedures and the SEC Rules.

Each request to provide tax services under either the general or specific pre-approval of the Audit Committees will describe in writing: (i) the scope of the service, the fee structure for the engagement, and any side letter or amendment to the engagement letter, or any other agreement between the Auditor and the audit client, relating to the service; and (ii) any compensation arrangement or other agreement between the Auditor and any person (other than the audit client) with respect to the promoting, marketing, or recommending of a transaction covered by the service. The Auditor will discuss with the Audit Committees the potential effects of the services on the Auditor’s independence and will document the substance of the discussion.

Non-audit services pursuant to the de minimis exception provided by the SEC Rules will be promptly brought to the attention of the Audit Committees for approval, including documentation that each of the conditions for this exception, as set forth in the SEC Rules, has been satisfied.

On at least an annual basis, the Auditor will prepare a summary of all the services provided to any entity in the investment company complex as defined in section 2-01(f)(14) of Regulation S-X in sufficient detail as to the nature of the engagement and the fees associated with those services.

The Audit Committees have designated the Funds’ Treasurer to monitor the performance of all services provided by the Auditor and to ensure such services are in compliance with these policies and procedures. The Funds’ Treasurer will report to the Audit Committees on a periodic basis as to the results of such monitoring. Both the Funds’ Treasurer and management of Invesco will immediately report to the chairman of the Audit Committees any breach of these policies and procedures that comes to the attention of the Funds’ Treasurer or senior management of Invesco.

Exhibit 1 to Pre-Approval of Audit and Non-Audit Services Policies and Procedures

Conditionally Prohibited Non-Audit Services (not prohibited if the Fund can reasonably conclude that the results of the service would not be subject to audit procedures in connection with the audit of the Fund’s financial statements)

	•		Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements of the audit client

	•		Financial information systems design and implementation

	•		Appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions, or contribution-in-kind reports

	•		Actuarial services

	•		Internal audit outsourcing services

Categorically Prohibited Non-Audit Services

	•		Management functions

	•		Human resources

	•		Broker-dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking services

	•		Legal services

	•		Expert services unrelated to the audit

	•		Any service or product provided for a contingent fee or a commission

	•		Services related to marketing, planning, or opining in favor of the tax treatment of confidential transactions or aggressive tax position transactions, a significant purpose of which is tax avoidance

	•		Tax services for persons in financial reporting oversight roles at the Fund

	•		Any other service that the Public Company Oversight Board determines by regulation is impermissible.

ITEM 5. AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS.

	(a)		The registrant has a separately-designed standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Members of the audit committee are: Jerry D. Choate, Linda Hutton Heagy and R. Craig Kennedy.

	(a)		Not applicable.

ITEM 6. SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS.

Investments in securities of unaffiliated issuers is included as part of the reports to stockholders filed under Item 1 of this Form.

ITEM 7. DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

I.2. PROXY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES — RETAIL


Applicable to		Retail Accounts
Risk Addressed by Policy		breach of fiduciary duty to client under Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by placing Invesco personal interests ahead of client best economic interests in voting proxies
Relevant Law and Other Sources		Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Last Tested Date
Policy/Procedure Owner		Advisory Compliance
Policy Approver		Fund Board
Approved/Adopted Date		January 1, 2010

The following policies and procedures apply to certain funds and other accounts managed by Invesco Advisers, Inc. (“Invesco”).

A. POLICY STATEMENT

Introduction

Our Belief

The Invesco Funds Boards of Trustees and Invesco’s investment professionals expect a high standard of corporate governance from the companies in our portfolios so that Invesco may fulfill its fiduciary obligation to our fund shareholders and other account holders. Well governed companies are characterized by a primary focus on the interests of shareholders, accountable boards of directors, ample transparency in financial disclosure, performance-driven cultures and appropriate consideration of all stakeholders. Invesco believes well governed companies create greater shareholder wealth over the long term than poorly governed companies, so we endeavor to vote in a manner that increases the value of our investments and fosters good governance within our portfolio companies.

In determining how to vote proxy issues, Invesco considers the probable business consequences of each issue and votes in a manner designed to protect and enhance fund shareholders’ and other account holders’ interests. Our voting decisions are intended to enhance each company’s total shareholder value over Invesco’s typical investment horizon.

Proxy voting is an integral part of Invesco’s investment process. We believe that the right to vote proxies should be managed with the same care as all other elements of the investment process. The objective of Invesco’s proxy-voting activity is to promote good governance and advance the economic interests of our clients. At no time will Invesco exercise its voting power to advance its own



January 2010		I.2 — 1

commercial interests, to pursue a social or political cause that is unrelated to our clients’ economic interests, or to favor a particular client or business relationship to the detriment of others.

B. OPERATING PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

Proxy administration

The Invesco Retail Proxy Committee (the “Proxy Committee”) consists of members representing Invesco’s Investments, Legal and Compliance departments. Invesco’s Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) are revised annually by the Proxy Committee, and are approved by the Invesco Funds Boards of Trustees. The Proxy Committee implements the Guidelines and oversees proxy voting.

The Proxy Committee has retained outside experts to assist with the analysis and voting of proxy issues. In addition to the advice offered by these experts, Invesco uses information gathered from our own research, company managements, Invesco’s portfolio managers and outside shareholder groups to reach our voting decisions.

Generally speaking, Invesco’s investment-research process leads us to invest in companies led by management teams we believe have the ability to conceive and execute strategies to outperform their competitors. We select companies for investment based in large part on our assessment of their management teams’ ability to create shareholder wealth. Therefore, in formulating our proxy-voting decisions, Invesco gives proper consideration to the recommendations of a company’s Board of Directors.

Important principles underlying the Invesco Proxy Voting Guidelines

I. Accountability

Management teams of companies are accountable to their boards of directors, and directors of publicly held companies are accountable to their shareholders. Invesco endeavors to vote the proxies of its portfolio companies in a manner that will reinforce the notion of a board’s accountability to its shareholders. Consequently, Invesco votes against any actions that would impair the rights of shareholders or would reduce shareholders’ influence over the board or over management.

The following are specific voting issues that illustrate how Invesco applies this principle of accountability.

•

Elections of directors. In uncontested director elections for companies that do not have a controlling shareholder, Invesco votes in favor of slates if they are comprised of at least a majority of independent directors and if the boards’ key committees are fully independent. Key committees include the Audit, Compensation and Governance or Nominating Committees. Invesco’s standard of independence excludes directors who, in addition to the directorship, have any material business or family relationships with the companies they serve.



January 2010		I.2 — 2

Contested director elections are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and are decided within the context of Invesco’s investment thesis on a company.

	•		Director performance. Invesco withholds votes from directors who exhibit a lack of accountability to shareholders, either through their level of attendance at meetings or by enacting egregious corporate-governance or other policies. In cases of material financial restatements, accounting fraud, habitually late filings, adopting shareholder rights plan (“poison pills”) without shareholder approval, or other areas of poor performance, Invesco may withhold votes from some or all of a company’s directors. In situations where directors’ performance is a concern, Invesco may also support shareholder proposals to take corrective actions such as so-called “clawback” provisions.

	•		Auditors and Audit Committee members. Invesco believes a company’s Audit Committee has a high degree of responsibility to shareholders in matters of financial disclosure, integrity of the financial statements and effectiveness of a company’s internal controls. Independence, experience and financial expertise are critical elements of a well-functioning Audit Committee. When electing directors who are members of a company’s Audit Committee, or when ratifying a company’s auditors, Invesco considers the past performance of the Committee and holds its members accountable for the quality of the company’s financial statements and reports.

	•		Majority standard in director elections. The right to elect directors is the single most important mechanism shareholders have to promote accountability. Invesco supports the nascent effort to reform the U.S. convention of electing directors, and votes in favor of proposals to elect directors by a majority vote.

	•		Classified boards. Invesco supports proposals to elect directors annually instead of electing them to staggered multi-year terms because annual elections increase a board’s level of accountability to its shareholders.

	•		Supermajority voting requirements. Unless proscribed by law in the state of incorporation, Invesco votes against actions that would impose any supermajority voting requirement, and supports actions to dismantle existing supermajority requirements.

	•		Responsiveness. Invesco withholds votes from directors who do not adequately respond to shareholder proposals that were approved by a majority of votes cast the prior year.

	•		Cumulative voting. The practice of cumulative voting can enable minority shareholders to have representation on a company’s board. Invesco supports proposals to institute the practice of cumulative voting at companies whose overall corporate-governance standards indicate a particular need to protect the interests of minority shareholders.



January 2010		I.2 — 3

•

Shareholder access. On business matters with potential financial consequences, Invesco votes in favor of proposals that would increase shareholders’ opportunities to express their views to boards of directors, proposals that would lower barriers to shareholder action and proposals to promote the adoption of generally accepted best practices in corporate governance.

II. Incentives

Invesco believes properly constructed compensation plans that include equity ownership are effective in creating incentives that induce managements and employees of our portfolio companies to create greater shareholder wealth. Invesco supports equity compensation plans that promote the proper alignment of incentives, and votes against plans that are overly dilutive to existing shareholders, plans that contain objectionable structural features, and plans that appear likely to reduce the value of an account’s investment.

Following are specific voting issues that illustrate how Invesco evaluates incentive plans.

	•		Executive compensation. Invesco evaluates compensation plans for executives within the context of the company’s performance under the executives’ tenure. Invesco believes independent compensation committees are best positioned to craft executive-compensation plans that are suitable for their company-specific circumstances. We view the election of those independent compensation committee members as the appropriate mechanism for shareholders to express their approval or disapproval of a company’s compensation practices. Therefore, Invesco generally does not support shareholder proposals to limit or eliminate certain forms of executive compensation. In the interest of reinforcing the notion of a compensation committee’s accountability to shareholders, Invesco supports proposals requesting that companies subject each year’s compensation record to an advisory shareholder vote, or so-called “say on pay” proposals.

	•		Equity-based compensation plans. When voting to approve or reject equity-based compensation plans, Invesco compares the total estimated cost of the plans, including stock options and restricted stock, against a carefully selected peer group and uses multiple performance metrics that help us determine whether the incentive structures in place are creating genuine shareholder wealth. Regardless of a plan’s estimated cost relative to its peer group, Invesco votes against plans that contain structural features that would impair the alignment of incentives between shareholders and management. Such features include the ability to reprice or reload options without shareholder approval, the ability to issue options below the stock’s current market price, or the ability to automatically replenish shares without shareholder approval.



January 2010		I.2 — 4

	•		Employee stock-purchase plans. Invesco supports employee stock-purchase plans that are reasonably designed to provide proper incentives to a broad base of employees, provided that the price at which employees may acquire stock is at most a 15 percent discount from the market price.

	•		Severance agreements. Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals requiring advisory shareholder ratification of executives’ severance agreements. However, we oppose proposals requiring such agreements to be ratified by shareholders in advance of their adoption.

III. Capitalization

Examples of management proposals related to a company’s capital structure include authorizing or issuing additional equity capital, repurchasing outstanding stock, or enacting a stock split or reverse stock split. On requests for additional capital stock, Invesco analyzes the company’s stated reasons for the request. Except where the request could adversely affect the fund’s ownership stake or voting rights, Invesco generally supports a board’s decisions on its needs for additional capital stock. Some capitalization proposals require a case-by-case analysis within the context of Invesco’s investment thesis on a company. Examples of such proposals include authorizing common or preferred stock with special voting rights, or issuing additional stock in connection with an acquisition.

IV. Mergers, Acquisitions and Other Corporate Actions

Issuers occasionally require shareholder approval to engage in certain corporate actions such as mergers, acquisitions, name changes, dissolutions, reorganizations, divestitures and reincorporations. Invesco analyzes these proposals within the context of our investment thesis on the company, and determines its vote on a case-by-case basis.

V. Anti-Takeover Measures

Practices designed to protect a company from unsolicited bids can adversely affect shareholder value and voting rights, and they create conflicts of interests among directors, management and shareholders. Except under special issuer-specific circumstances, Invesco votes to reduce or eliminate such measures. These measures include adopting or renewing “poison pills”, requiring supermajority voting on certain corporate actions, classifying the election of directors instead of electing each director to an annual term, or creating separate classes of common or preferred stock with special voting rights. Invesco generally votes against management proposals to impose these types of measures, and generally votes for shareholder proposals designed to reduce such measures. Invesco supports shareholder proposals directing companies to subject their anti-takeover provisions to a shareholder vote.

VI. Shareholder Proposals on Corporate Governance

Invesco generally votes for shareholder proposals that are designed to protect shareholder rights if a company’s corporate-governance standards indicate that such additional protections are warranted.



January 2010		I.2 — 5

VII. Shareholder Proposals on Social Responsibility

The potential costs and economic benefits of shareholder proposals seeking to amend a company’s practices for social reasons are difficult to assess. Analyzing the costs and economic benefits of these proposals is highly subjective and does not fit readily within our framework of voting to create greater shareholder wealth over Invesco’s typical investment horizon. Therefore, Invesco abstains from voting on shareholder proposals deemed to be of a purely social, political or moral nature.

VIII. Routine Business Matters

Routine business matters rarely have a potentially material effect on the economic prospects of fund holdings, so we generally support the board’s discretion on these items. However, Invesco votes against proposals where there is insufficient information to make a decision about the nature of the proposal. Similarly, Invesco votes against proposals to conduct other unidentified business at shareholder meetings.

Summary

These Guidelines provide an important framework for making proxy-voting decisions, and should give fund shareholders and other account holders insight into the factors driving Invesco’s decisions. The Guidelines cannot address all potential proxy issues, however. Decisions on specific issues must be made within the context of these Guidelines and within the context of the investment thesis of the funds and other accounts that own the company’s stock. Where a different investment thesis is held by portfolio managers who may hold stocks in common, Invesco may vote the shares held on a fund-by-fund or account-by-account basis.

Exceptions

In certain circumstances, Invesco may refrain from voting where the economic cost of voting a company’s proxy exceeds any anticipated benefits of that proxy proposal.

Share-lending programs

One reason that some portion of Invesco’s position in a particular security might not be voted is the securities lending program. When securities are out on loan and earning fees for the lending fund, they are transferred into the borrower’s name. Any proxies during the period of the loan are voted by the borrower. The lending fund would have to terminate the loan to vote the company’s proxy, an action that is not generally in the best economic interest of fund shareholders. However, whenever Invesco determines that the benefit to shareholders or other account holders of voting a particular proxy outweighs the revenue lost by terminating the loan, we recall the securities for the purpose of voting the fund’s full position.

“Share-blocking”

Another example of a situation where Invesco may be unable to vote is in countries where the exercise of voting rights requires the fund to submit to short-term trading restrictions, a practice known as “share-blocking.” Invesco generally



January 2010		I.2 — 6

refrains from voting proxies in share-blocking countries unless the portfolio manager determines that the benefit to fund shareholders and other account holders of voting a specific proxy outweighs the fund’s or other account’s temporary inability to sell the security.

International constraints

An additional concern that sometimes precludes our voting non-U.S. proxies is our inability to receive proxy materials with enough time and enough information to make a voting decision. In the great majority of instances, however, we are able to vote non-U.S. proxies successfully. It is important to note that Invesco makes voting decisions for non-U.S. issuers using these Guidelines as our framework, but also takes into account the corporate-governance standards, regulatory environment and generally accepted best practices of the local market.

Exceptions to these Guidelines

Invesco retains the flexibility to accommodate company-specific situations where strictly adhering to the Guidelines would lead to a vote that the Proxy Committee deems not to be in the best interest of the funds’ shareholders and other account holders. In these situations, the Proxy Committee will vote the proxy in the manner deemed to be in the best interest of the funds’ shareholders and other account holders, and will promptly inform the funds’ Boards of Trustees of such vote and the circumstances surrounding it.

Resolving potential conflicts of interest

A potential conflict of interest arises when Invesco votes a proxy for an issuer with which it also maintains a material business relationship. Examples could include issuers that are distributors of Invesco’s products, or issuers that employ Invesco to manage portions of their retirement plans or treasury accounts. Invesco reviews each proxy proposal to assess the extent, if any, to which there may be a material conflict between the interests of the fund shareholders or other account holders and Invesco.

Invesco takes reasonable measures to determine whether a potential conflict may exist. A potential conflict is deemed to exist only if one or more of the Proxy Committee members actually knew or should have known of the potential conflict.

If a material potential conflict is deemed to exist, Invesco may resolve the potential conflict in one of the following ways: (1) if the proposal that gives rise to the potential conflict is specifically addressed by the Guidelines, Invesco may vote the proxy in accordance with the predetermined Guidelines; (2) Invesco may engage an independent third party to determine how the proxy should be voted; or (3) Invesco may establish an ethical wall or other informational barrier between the persons involved in the potential conflict and the persons making the proxy-voting decision in order to insulate the potential conflict from the decision makers.

Because the Guidelines are pre-determined and crafted to be in the best economic interest of shareholders and other account holders, applying the Guidelines to vote client proxies should, in most instances, adequately resolve any potential conflict of



January 2010		I.2 — 7

interest. As an additional safeguard against potential conflicts, persons from Invesco’s marketing, distribution and other customer-facing functions are precluded from becoming members of the Proxy Committee.

On a quarterly basis, the Invesco Funds Boards of Trustees review a report from Invesco’s Internal Compliance Controls Committee. The report contains a list of all known material business relationships that Invesco maintains with publicly traded issuers. That list is cross-referenced with the list of proxies voted over the period. If there are any instances where Invesco’s voting pattern on the proxies of its material business partners is inconsistent with its voting pattern on all other issuers, they are brought before the Trustees and explained by the Chairman of the Proxy Committee.

Personal conflicts of interest. If any member of the Proxy Committee has a personal conflict of interest with respect to a company or an issue presented for voting, that Proxy Committee member will inform the Proxy Committee of such conflict and will abstain from voting on that company or issue.

Funds of funds. Some Invesco Funds offering diversified asset allocation within one investment vehicle own shares in other Invesco Funds. A potential conflict of interest could arise if an underlying Invesco Fund has a shareholder meeting with any proxy issues to be voted on, because Invesco’s asset-allocation funds or target-maturity funds may be large shareholders of the underlying fund. In order to avoid any potential for a conflict, the asset-allocation funds and target maturity funds vote their shares in the same proportion as the votes of the external shareholders of the underlying fund.

C. RECORDKEEPING

Records are maintained in accordance with Invesco’s Recordkeeping Policy.

Policies and Vote Disclosure

A copy of these Guidelines and the voting record of each Invesco Fund are available on our web site, www.invesco.com. In accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, all funds file a record of all proxy-voting activity for the prior 12 months ending June 30th. That filing is made on or before August 31st of each year.



January 2010		I.2 — 8

ITEM 8. PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

The following individuals are jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Trust:

	•		Thomas Byron, Portfolio Manager, who has been responsible for the Trust since 2009 and has been associated with Invesco and/or its affiliates since 2010. From 1981 to 2010, Mr. Byron was associated with Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. in an investment management capacity.

	•		Robert Stryker, Portfolio Manager, who has been responsible for the Trust since 2009 and has been with Invesco and/or its affiliates since 2010. From 1994 to 2010, Mr. Stryker was associated with Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. in an investment management capacity.

	•		Robert Wimmel, Portfolio Manager, who has been responsible for the Trust since 2001 and has been associated with Invesco and/or its affiliates since 2010. From 1996 to 2010, Mr. Wimmel was associated with Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. in an investment management capacity.

Portfolio Manager Fund Holdings and Information on Other Managed Accounts

Invesco’s portfolio managers develop investment models which are used in connection with the management of certain Invesco Funds as well as other mutual funds for which Invesco or an affiliate acts as sub-adviser, other pooled investment vehicles that are not registered mutual funds, and other accounts managed for organizations and individuals. The ‘Investments’ chart reflects the portfolio managers’ investments in the Funds that they manage. Accounts are grouped into three categories: (i) investments made directly in the Fund, (ii) investments made in an Invesco pooled investment vehicle with the same or similar objectives and strategies as the Fund, and (iii) any investments made in any Invesco Fund or Invesco pooled investment vehicle. The ‘Assets Managed’ chart reflects information regarding accounts other than the Funds for which each portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities. Accounts are grouped into three categories: (i) other registered investment companies, (ii) other pooled investment vehicles and (iii) other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts pay advisory fees that are based on account performance (performance-based fees), information on those accounts is specifically broken out. In addition, any assets denominated in foreign currencies have been converted into U.S. Dollars using the exchange rates as of the applicable date.

Investments

The following information is as of February 29, 2012:


	Dollar Range of	Dollar Range of Investments in	Dollar Range of all Investments
Portfolio	Investments in	Invesco pooled	in Funds and
Manager	each Fund¹	investment vehicles²	Invesco pooled investment vehicles
Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust
Thomas Byron	$1-$10,000	N/A	$100,001-$500,000


1		This column reflects investments in a Fund’s shares beneficially owned by a portfolio manager (as determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a) (2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended). Beneficial ownership includes ownership by a portfolio manager’s immediate family members sharing the same household.

2		This column reflects portfolio managers’ investments made either directly or through a deferred compensation or a similar plan in Invesco pooled investment vehicles with the same or similar objectives and strategies as the Fund as of the most recent fiscal year end of the Fund.


	Dollar Range of	Dollar Range of Investments in	Dollar Range of all Investments
Portfolio	Investments in	Invesco pooled	in Funds and
Manager	each Fund¹	investment vehicles²	Invesco pooled investment vehicles
Robert Stryker	None	N/A	$100,001-$500,000
Robert Wimmel	None	N/A	$100,001-$500,000

Assets Managed

The following information is as of February 29, 2012:

Other Registered Investment

Portfolio

Companies Managed

Other Pooled Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts Managed

Manager

(assets in millions)

Managed (assets in millions)

(assets in millions)

Number of Accounts

Assets

Number of Accounts

Assets

Number of Accounts

Assets

Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust

Thomas Byron

$13,832.5

None

Robert Stryker

$13,832.5

None

Robert Wimmel

$13,832.5

None

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Actual or apparent conflicts of interest may arise when a portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to more than one Fund or other account. More specifically, portfolio managers who manage multiple Funds and/or other accounts may be presented with one or more of the following potential conflicts:

•		The management of multiple Funds and/or other accounts may result in a portfolio manager devoting unequal time and attention to the management of each Fund and/or other account. The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser seek to manage such competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers by having portfolio managers focus on a particular investment discipline. Most other accounts managed by a portfolio manager are managed using the same investment models that are used in connection with the management of the Funds.

•		If a portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity which may be suitable for more than one Fund or other account, a Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of filled purchase or sale orders across all eligible Funds and other accounts. To deal with these situations, the Adviser, each Sub-Adviser and the Funds have adopted procedures for allocating portfolio transactions across multiple accounts.

•		The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser determine which broker to use to execute each order for securities transactions for the Funds, consistent with its duty to seek best execution of the transaction. However, for certain other accounts (such as mutual funds for which Invesco or an affiliate acts as sub-adviser, other pooled investment vehicles that are not registered mutual funds, and other accounts managed for organizations and individuals), the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser may be limited by the client with respect to the selection of brokers or may be instructed to direct trades through a particular broker. In these cases, trades for a Fund in a particular security may be placed separately from, rather than aggregated with, such other accounts. Having separate transactions with respect to a security may

		temporarily affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the possible detriment of the Fund or other account(s) involved.

•		Finally, the appearance of a conflict of interest may arise where the Adviser or Sub-Adviser has an incentive, such as a performance-based management fee, which relates to the management of one Fund or account but not all Funds and accounts for which a portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities.

The Adviser, each Sub-Adviser, and the Funds have adopted certain compliance procedures which are designed to address these types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation in which a conflict arises.

Description of Compensation Structure

For the Adviser and each affiliated Sub-Adviser

The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser seek to maintain a compensation program that is competitively positioned to attract and retain high-caliber investment professionals. Portfolio managers receive a base salary, an incentive bonus opportunity and an equity compensation opportunity. Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed and may be modified each year as appropriate to reflect changes in the market, as well as to adjust the factors used to determine bonuses to promote competitive Fund performance. The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser evaluate competitive market compensation by reviewing compensation survey results conducted by an independent third party of investment industry compensation. Each portfolio manager’s compensation consists of the following three elements:

Base Salary. Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary. In setting the base salary, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser’s intention is to be competitive in light of the particular portfolio manager’s experience and responsibilities.

Annual Bonus. The portfolio managers are eligible, along with other employees of the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, to participate in a discretionary year-end bonus pool. The Compensation Committee of Invesco Ltd. reviews and approves the amount of the bonus pool available for the Adviser and each of the Sub-Adviser’s investment centers. The Compensation Committee considers investment performance and financial results in its review. In addition, while having no direct impact on individual bonuses, assets under management are considered when determining the starting bonus funding levels. Each portfolio manager is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus which is based on quantitative (i.e. investment performance) and non-quantitative factors (which may include, but are not limited to, individual performance, risk management and teamwork).

Each portfolio manager’s compensation is linked to the pre-tax investment performance of the Funds/accounts managed by the portfolio manager as described in Table 1 below.

Table 1


Sub-Adviser		Performance time period³
Invesco⁴ Invesco Australia⁴ Invesco Deutschland		One-, Three- and Five-year performance against Fund peer group.

Invesco Advisors- Invesco Real Estate⁵ Invesco Senior Secured^{4, 6}		Not applicable



3		Rolling time periods based on calendar year-end.

4		Portfolio Managers may be granted an annual deferral award that vests on a pro-rata basis over a four year period and final payments are based on the performance of eligible Funds selected by the portfolio manager at the time the award is granted.

5		Portfolio Managers for Invesco Global Real Estate Fund, Invesco Real Estate Fund, Invesco Global Real Estate Income Fund and Invesco V.I. Global Real Estate Fund base their bonus on new operating profits of the U.S. Real Estate Division of Invesco.


Invesco Canada⁴		One-year performance against Fund peer group.

		Three- and Five-year performance against entire universe of Canadian funds.

Invesco Hong Kong⁴ Invesco Asset Management		One-, Three- and Five-year performance against Fund peer group.

Invesco Japan⁷		One-, Three- and Five-year performance against the appropriate Micropol benchmark.

High investment performance (against applicable peer group and/or benchmarks) would deliver compensation generally associated with top pay in the industry (determined by reference to the third-party provided compensation survey information) and poor investment performance (versus applicable peer group) would result in low bonus compared to the applicable peer group or no bonus at all. These decisions are reviewed and approved collectively by senior leadership which has responsibility for executing the compensation approach across the organization.

Equity-Based Compensation. Portfolio managers may be granted an annual deferral award that allows them to select receipt of shares of certain Invesco Funds with a vesting period as well as common shares and/or restricted shares of Invesco Ltd. stock from pools determined from time to time by the Compensation Committee of Invesco Ltd.’s Board of Directors. Awards of equity-based compensation typically vest over time, so as to create incentives to retain key talent.

Portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees.

ITEM 9. PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS.

Not applicable.

ITEM 10. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.

None

ITEM 11. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

(a)

As of March 21, 2012, an evaluation was performed under the supervision and with the participation of the officers of the Registrant, including the PEO and PFO, to assess the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, as that term is defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”), as amended. Based on that evaluation, the Registrant’s officers, including the PEO and PFO, concluded that, as of March 21, 2012, the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures were reasonably designed to ensure: (1) that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant on Form N-CSR is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and (2) that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to the PEO and PFO as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.


6		Invesco Senior Secured’s bonus is based on annual measures of equity return and standard tests of collateralization performance.

7		Portfolio Managers for Invesco Pacific Growth Fund’s compensation is based on the one-, three- and five-year performance against the appropriate Micropol benchmark.

(b)

There have been no changes in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Act) that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 12. EXHIBITS.


12(a) (1)		Code of Ethics.

12(a) (2)		Certifications of principal executive officer and principal financial officer as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

12(a) (3)		Not applicable.

12(b)		Certifications of principal executive officer and principal financial officer as required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 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.


	Registrant: Invesco Van Kampen Municipal Opportunity Trust
	By:	/s/ Colin Meadows
		Colin Meadows
		Principal Executive Officer

Date: May 4, 2012

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and 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/ Colin Meadows
		Colin Meadows
		Principal Executive Officer

Date: May 4, 2012



	By:	/s/ Sheri Morris
		Sheri Morris
		Principal Financial Officer

Date: May 4, 2012

EXHIBIT INDEX


12(a)(1)		Code of Ethics.

12(a)(2)		Certifications of principal executive officer and principal Financial officer as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

12(a)(3)		Not applicable.

12(b)		Certifications of principal executive officer and principal financial officer as required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.