<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77E LEGAL
<SEQUENCE>5
<FILENAME>legal0307.txt
<DESCRIPTION>LEGAL
<TEXT>
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund
March-07

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 CapitalManagement 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>
