<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77E LEGAL
<SEQUENCE>2
<FILENAME>legal0906.txt
<DESCRIPTION>LEGAL
<TEXT>
World Dollar Government Fund II
September-06

Item 77E
Legal Proceedings

As has been previously reported, the staff of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange
Commission ("SEC") and the Office of the New York Attorney
General
("NYAG") have been investigating practices in the mutual fund
industry identi-
fied as "market timing" and "late trading" of mutual fund shares.
Certain other
regulatory authorities have also been conducting investigations into
these practices
within the industry and have requested that the Adviser provide
information
to them. The Adviser has been cooperating and will continue to
cooperate with
all of these authorities. The shares of the Fund are not redeemable
by the Fund,
but are traded on an exchange at prices established by the market.
Accordingly,
the Fund and its shareholders are not subject to the market timing
and late
trading practices that are the subject of the investigations mentioned
above or
the lawsuits described below. Please see below for a description of
the agreements
reached by the Adviser and the SEC and NYAG in connection with
the
investigations mentioned above.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Adviser and certain
other defendants
in which plaintiffs make claims purportedly based on or related to
the same
practices that are the subject of the SEC and NYAG investigations
referred to
above. Some of these lawsuits name the Fund as a party. The
lawsuits are now
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland pursuant
to a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferring and
centralizing all of the mutual funds involving market and late
trading in the
District of Maryland (the "Mutual Fund MDL"). Management of
the Adviser
believes that these private lawsuits are not likely to have a material
adverse effect
on the results of operations or financial condition of the Fund.

On December 18, 2003, the Adviser confirmed that it had reached
terms with
the SEC and the NYAG for the resolution of regulatory claims
relating to the
practice of "market timing" mutual fund shares in some of the
AllianceBernstein
Mutual Funds. The agreement with the SEC is reflected in an Order
of the
Commission ("SEC Order"). The agreement with the NYAG is
memorialized in
an Assurance of Discontinuation dated September 1, 2004 ("NYAG
Order").
Among the key provisions of these agreements are the following:

(i) The Adviser agreed to establish a $250 million fund (the
"Reimbursement
Fund") to compensate mutual fund shareholders for the adverse
effects of
market timing attributable to market timing relationships described
in the
SEC Order. According to the SEC Order, the Reimbursement Fund
is to be
paid, in order of priority, to fund investors based on (i) their aliquot
share
of losses suffered by the fund due to market timing, and (ii) a
proportionate
share of advisory fees paid by such fund during the period of such
market
timing;

(ii) The Adviser agreed to reduce the advisory fees it receives from
some of the
AllianceBernstein long-term, open-end retail funds, commencing
January
1, 2004, for a period of at least five years; and

(iii) The Adviser agreed to implement changes to its governance
and compliance
procedures. Additionally, the SEC Order contemplates that the
Adviser's registered investment company clients, including the
Fund, will
introduce governance and compliance changes.



The shares of the Fund are not redeemable by the Fund, but are
traded on an
exchange at prices established by the market. Accordingly, the
Fund and its
shareholders are not subject to the market timing practices
described in the SEC
Order and are not expected to participate in the Reimbursement
Fund. Since the
Fund is a closed-end fund, it will not have its advisory fee reduced
pursuant to
the terms of the agreements mentioned above.

On February 10, 2004, the Adviser received (i) a subpoena duces
tecum from
the Office of the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia and
(ii) a request
for information from West Virginia's Office of the State Auditor,
Securities
Commission (the "West Virginia Securities Commissioner")
(together, the
"Information Requests"). Both Information Requests require the
Adviser to
produce documents concerning, among other things, any market
timing or late
trading in the Adviser's sponsored mutual funds. The Adviser
responded to the
Information Requests and has been cooperating fully with the
investigation.

On April 11, 2005, a complaint entitled The Attorney General of
the State of West
Virginia v. AIM Advisors, Inc., et al. ("WVAG Complaint") was
filed against the
Adviser, Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P. ("Alliance
Holding"), and
various other defendants not affiliated with the Adviser. The
WVAG Complaint
was filed in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia by
the Attorney
General of the State of West Virginia. The WVAG Complaint
makes factual
Allegations generally similar to those in certain of the complaints
related to the
Lawsuits discussed above. On October 19, 2005, the WVAG
Complaint was transferred
to the Mutual Fund MDL.

On August 30, 2005, the West VirginiaSecurities Commissioner
signed a Summary Order to Cease and Desist, and
Notice of Right to Hearing addressed to the Adviser and Alliance
Holding. The
Summary Order claims that the Adviser and Alliance Holding
violated the West
Virginia Uniform Securities Act, and makes factual allegations
generally similar
to those in the SEC Order and the NYAG Order.  On January 26,
2006, the Adviser,
Alliance Holding, and various unaffiliated defendants filed a Petition
for Writ of Prohibition
and Order Suspending Proceedings in West Virginia state court
seeking to vacate the Summary
Order and for other relief. The court denied the writ and in
September 2006 the Supreme Court of Appeals declined the
defendants' petition for appeal. On September 22, 2006, Alliance
and Alliance Holding filed an answer and motion to dismiss the
Summary Order with the Securities Commissioner.

On June 22, 2004, a purported class action complaint entitled
Aucoin, et al. v.
Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al. ("Aucoin Complaint")
was filed against
the Adviser, Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P., Alliance
Capital
Management Corporation, AXA Financial, Inc., AllianceBernstein
Investment
Research & Management, Inc., certain current and former directors
of the
AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds, and unnamed Doe defendants.
The Aucoin
Complaint names certain of the AllianceBernstein mutual funds as
nominal
defendants. The Fund was not named as a defendant in the Aucoin
Complaint.
The Aucoin Complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the
Southern District of New York by alleged shareholders of an
AllianceBernstein
mutual fund. The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things,
(i) that certain
of the defendants improperly authorized the payment of excessive
commissions
and other fees from fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for
preferential
marketing services, (ii) that certain of the defendants
misrepresented and
omitted from registration statements and other reports material facts
concerning
such payments, and (iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct
as control
persons of other defendants. The Aucoin Complaint asserts claims
for violation
of Sections 34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act,
Sections
206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary
duties, and
aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and punitive
damages, rescission
of their contracts with the Adviser, including recovery of all fees
paid to the
Adviser pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of all fund-
related fees,
commissions and soft dollar payments, and restitution of all
unlawfully or
discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the Aucoin Complaint
were filed against the Adviser and certain other defendants. All nine
of the lawsuits (i) were brought as class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (ii) assert
claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint, and (iii) are
brought on behalf of shareholders of the Funds.
On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint ("Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint") that
asserts claims substantially similar to the Aucoin Complaint and the
nine additional lawsuits referenced above. On October 19, 2005, the
District Court dismissed each of the claims set forth in the Aucoin
Consolidated Amended Complaint, except for plaintiffs' claim under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. On January 11, 2006,
the District Court granted defendants' motion for reconsideration and
dismissed the remaining Section 36(b) claim. On May 31, 2006 the
District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. On July 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On
October 4, 2006 the appeal was withdrawn by stipulation, with
plaintiffs reserving the right to reinstate it at a later date.

The Adviser believes that these matters are not likely to have a
material adverse
effect on the Fund or the Adviser's ability to perform advisory
services relating to
the Fund.

</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
