SUB-ITEM 77E - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In early 2004, a purported shareholder in the Dreyfus Disciplined Stock Fund and
a  purported  shareholder  in the Dreyfus S&P 500 Stock Index Fund (now known as
Dreyfus BASIC S&P 500 Stock Index Fund) each filed similar class action lawsuits
in the United States  District  Court for the Western  District of  Pennsylvania
against  Mellon   Financial   Corporation,   Mellon  Bank,   N.A.,  The  Dreyfus
Corporation,  Founders Asset Management LLC, and the directors of certain of the
Dreyfus Funds (together,  the "Funds"). (Hays v. Mellon Financial Corp., et. al.
and Wortman v. Mellon Financial Corp., et. al.)

In September  2004,  plaintiffs  served a  Consolidated  Amended  Complaint (the
"Amended  Complaint") on behalf of a purported class of all persons who acquired
interests  in any of the Funds  between  January 30, 1999 and November 17, 2003,
and derivatively on behalf of the Funds. In addition to the defendants mentioned
above, Plaintiffs also named Dreyfus Service Corporation and Premier Mutual Fund
Services, Inc. and two additional directors of certain Funds as defendants.  The
Amended  Complaint in the newly styled In re Dreyfus Mutual Funds Fee Litigation
alleges violations of Sections 34(b),  36(a), 36(b), and 48(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940,  Section 215 of the  Investment  Advisers Act of 1940,  the
Pennsylvania  Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer  Protection Law and common-law
claims.  Plaintiffs seek to recover allegedly  improper and excessive Rule 12b-1
and advisory fees allegedly  charged to the Funds for marketing and distribution
services.  More specifically,  plaintiffs claim, among other things,  that 12b-1
fees and directed brokerage were improperly used to pay brokers to recommend the
Funds over other funds,  and that such payments were not disclosed to investors.
In addition,  plaintiffs assert that economies of scale and soft-dollar benefits
were not passed on to the Funds.  Plaintiffs further allege that 12b-1 fees were
improperly  charged to certain of the Funds that were  closed to new  investors.
The Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, rescission of the
advisory  contracts,  and an accounting and restitution of any unlawful fees, as
well as an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

As noted,  some of the claims in this  litigation are asserted  derivatively  on
behalf of the Funds. With respect to such derivative claims, the Funds have been
named as nominal defendants and no relief is sought against the Funds.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended  Complaint on November 12, 2004,
and those motions are pending. No discovery has been conducted.