sub-item 77-Mis3
Exhibit 1
Sub-Item 77E
Prior to December 15, 1997, the Dreyfus Disciplined Stock Fund (the
"Fund") consisted of "Retail" and "Institutional" classes of shares and
Institutional shares were subject to a distribution plan adopted pursuant to
Rule 12b-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act") (the
"Prior Plan"). Under the Prior Plan, the Fund was authorized to spend up to
0.25% of its average daily net assets attributable to Institutional shares
to compensate Dreyfus Service Corporation for shareholder servicing
activities and the Fund's distributor for shareholder servicing activities
and expenses primarily intended to result in the sale of Institutional
shares. On December 2, 1997, shareholders of the Fund's then-existing
Retail shares voted to approve an amended distribution plan providing for
imposition of a 0.10% fee under Rule 12b-1 (the "Amended Plan"). Effective
December 15, 1997, the Amended Plan was implemented, the Fund's
"Institutional" and "Retail" designations were eliminated, and the Fund
became a single class fund without any separate class designations, subject
to the Amended Plan. The Amended Plan allows the Fund to spend annually up
0.10% of its average daily net assets to compensate Mellon Bank, N.A.
("Mellon Bank") and its affiliates (including but not limited to The Dreyfus
Corporation ("Dreyfus") and Dreyfus Service Corporation) for shareholder
servicing activities and expenses primarily intended to result in the sale
of Fund shares.
On December 8, 1997, the Fund was served with a summons and complaint
in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on December 1, 1997 by two persons who claim
to be holders of the Fund's former Retail shares and who purport to act on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated shareholder (the
"Action"). The defendants in the Action were The Dreyfus/Laurel Funds,
Inc., its Directors, the Fund, Dreyfus, Mellon Bank, Mellon Bank Corporation
and the Fund's portfolio manager. The complaint in the Action asserted that
the adoption of the Amended Plan with respect to the Fund's Retail shares
was in violation of the 1940 Act and common law. The action sought
unspecified damages. On March 29, 1999, the trial court dismissed the
lawsuit with prejudice, but the plaintiffs filed an appeal. On December 23,
1999, the appeals court affirmed the dismissal and the time period for the
plaintiffs to petition for further review has expired.
