<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.77E LEGAL
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>legal.txt
<DESCRIPTION>LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
<TEXT>
April-05  ACM Municipal Securities Income Fund

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 identified 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 fund cases involving
market and late trading in the District of Maryland.  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 Discontinuance 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 Advisers 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.

The Adviser and approximately twelve other investment management firms were
publicly mentioned in connection with the settlement by the SEC of charges that
an unaffiliated broker/dealer violated federal securities laws relating to its
receipt of compensation for selling specific mutual funds and the disclosure of
such compensation. The SEC indicated publicly that, among other things, it was
considering enforcement action in connection with mutual funds disclosure of
such arrangements and in connection with the practice of considering mutual
fund sales in the direction of brokerage commissions from fund portfolio
transactions. The SEC issued subpoenas to the Adviser, and the NASD issued
requests for information in connection with this matter and the Adviser
provided documents and other information to the SEC and NASD and cooperated
fully with the investigations. On June 8, 2005 the NASD announced that it had
reached a settlement with AllianceBernstein Investment Research and Management,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Adviser and the distributor of the open-
end mutual funds sponsored by the Adviser, in connection with this matter.
Management of the Adviser expects that the settlement has resolved both
regulatory inquires described above.

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 nominal defendant in the Aucoin
Complaint.  The Aucoin Complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York by an alleged shareholder 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, numerous additional lawsuits making factual allegations
substantially similar to those in the Aucoin Complaint were filed against the
Adviser and certain other defendants, and others may be filed.

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



</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
