MFS Investment Management may have misrepresented the investment returns of Class A shares of its mututal funds verses Class b and C shares to generate larger upfront fees.

Investigation and pending class action against MFS Investment Management on behalf of investors who purchased class A shares of certain multi-class MFS stock mutual funds in the aggregate amount of less than $50,000 during the period July 28, 2003 through July 28, 2008 and paid a load or commission.

The class action complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud investors by disseminating prospectuses for the following mutual funds that contain incorrect, incomplete and misleading information: Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock Fund (MIGFX); Massachusetts Investors Trust (MITTX); MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (MAAGX); MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (MACFX); MFS Core Equity Fund (MRGAX); MFS Core Growth Fund (MFCAX); MFS Emerging Growth Fund (MFEGX); MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (MEMAX); MFS Global Equity Fund (MWEFX); MFS Global Growth Fund (MWOFX); MFS Global Total Return Fund (MFWTX); MFS Growth Allocation Fund (MAGWX); MFS International Diversification Fund (MDIDX); MFS International Growth Fund (MGRAX); MFS International New Discovery Fund (MIDAX); MFS International Value Fund (MGIAX); MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (OTCAX); MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (MVCAX); MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (MAMAX); MFS New Discovery Fund (MNDAX); MFS New Endeavor Fund (MECAX); MFS Research Fund (MFRFX); MFS Research International Fund (MRSAX); MFS Sector Rotational Fund (SRFAX); MFS Strategic Value Fund (MSVTX); MFS Technology Fund (MTCAX); MFS Total Return Fund (MSFRX); MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (MUEAX); MFS Utilities Fund (MMUFX); and MFS Value Fund (MEIAX).

The class action lawsuit alleges MFS, in contravention of their disclosure obligations, knowingly presented class A shares as the best performing share class for the long-term, causing the class members to purchase class A shares of the aforementioned mutual funds, when class B and/or class C shares would have been their best investment choice for any holding period.

By making misleading disclosures in, and omitting material information from, the prospectuses for these funds, defendants earned excessive profits while the investors and other class members suffered decreased returns on their investments.