On or about November 24, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a second putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") against Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, Wells Management, and Wells Fund I (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04A-13051 6). Wells Fund I was served with the Complaint on or about November 30, 2004. The plaintiffs filed the Complaint purportedly on behalf of all limited partners holding B units of Wells Fund I as of January 9, 2002. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the general partners breached their fiduciary duties to the limited partners by, among other things, (a) failing to timely disclose alleged inconsistencies between sales literature and the partnership agreement relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds; (b) engaging in a scheme to fraudulently conceal alleged inconsistencies between sales literature and the partnership agreement relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds; and (c) not accepting a settlement offer proposed by a holder of A units and a holder of A and B units in other litigation naming Wells Fund I as a defendant, in which other litigation the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fund I. The Complaint also alleges that misrepresentations and omissions in an April 2002 consent solicitation to the limited partners caused that consent solicitation to be materially misleading. In addition, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that the general partners and Wells Management breached an alleged contract arising out of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the limited partners relating to a waiver of deferred management fees.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, the following: judgment against the general partners of Wells Fund I, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial; punitive damages; disgorgement of fees earned by the general partners directly or through their affiliates; a declaration that the consent obtained as a result of an April 2002 consent solicitation is null and void; enforcement of an alleged contract arising out of the June 2000 consent solicitation to waive Wells Management's deferred management fees; and an award to plaintiffs of their attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The Complaint states that Wells Fund I is named only as a necessary party defendant and that the plaintiffs seek no money from or relief at the expense of Wells Fund I. Due to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter at this time. However, an adverse outcome could adversely affect the ability of Wells Capital, WIS, Wells Management, and Mr. Wells to fulfill their duties under the agreements and relationships they have with the Registrant.