Under the terms of a typical repurchase agreement, a portfolio takes possession of an underlying debt obligation subject to an obligation of the seller to repurchase, and of the portfolio to resell, the obligation at an agreed-upon price and time, thereby determining the yield during a portfolio’s holding period. When entering into repurchase agreements, it is the Portfolio’s policy that its custodian or a third party custodian, acting on the Portfolio’s behalf, take possession of the underlying collateral securities, the market value of which, at all times, at least equals the principal amount of the repurchase transaction, including accrued interest. To the extent that any repurchase transaction maturity exceeds one business day, the value of the collateral is marked to market and measured against the value of the agreement to ensure the adequacy of the collateral. If the counterparty defaults, the Portfolio generally has the right to use the collateral to satisfy the terms of the repurchase transaction. However, if the market value of the collateral declines during the period in which the Portfolio seeks to assert its rights or if bankruptcy proceedings are commenced with respect to the seller of the security, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed or limited.
Management has analyzed the Portfolio’s tax positions taken on federal income tax returns for all open tax years and has concluded that as of February 28, 2010, no provision for income tax is required in the Portfolio’s financial statements. The Portfolio’s federal and state income tax returns for tax years for which the applicable statutes of limitations have not expired are subject to examination by Internal Revenue Service and state departments of revenue.
2. Investment management agreement and other transactions with affiliates
Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC (“LMPFA”) is the Portfolio’s investment manager and Western Asset Management Company (“Western Asset”) is the Portfolio’s subadviser. LMPFA and Western Asset are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Legg Mason, Inc. (“Legg Mason”).
Under the investment management agreement, the Portfolio pays an investment management fee, calculated daily and paid monthly, at an annual rate of 0.10% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.
LMPFA provides administrative and certain oversight services to the Portfolio. LMPFA delegates to the subadviser the day-to-day portfolio management of the Portfolio. For its services, LMPFA pays Western Asset 70% of the net management fee it receives from the Portfolio.
During the six months ended February 28, 2010, the Portfolio had a voluntary expense limitation in place of 0.10% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.
30 | Prime Cash Reserves Portfolio 2010 Semi-Annual Report
Notes to financial statements (unaudited) (cont’d)
During the six months ended February 28, 2010, LMPFA waived a portion of its fee in the amount of $333,421.
The manager is permitted to recapture amounts previously forgone or reimbursed to the Portfolio during the same fiscal year if the Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses have fallen to a level below an expense limitation (“expense cap”). In no case will the manager recapture any amount that would result, on any particular business day of the Portfolio, in the Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses exceeding the expense cap.
Certain officers and one Trustee of the Trust are employees of Legg Mason or its affiliates and do not receive compensation from the Trust.
3. Derivative instruments and hedging activities
Financial Accounting Standards Board Codification Topic 815 (formerly, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 161) (“ASC Topic 815”) requires enhanced disclosure about an entity’s derivative and hedging activities.
During the six months ended February 28, 2010, the Portfolio did not invest in swaps, options, or futures and does not have any intention to do so in the future.
4. Legal matters
Beginning in May 2004, class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed against Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“CGM”), a former distributor of the Fund and other affiliated funds (collectively, the “Funds”) and a number of its then affiliates, including Smith Barney Fund Management (“SBFM”) and Salomon Brothers Asset Management Inc. (“SBAM”), which were then investment adviser or manager to certain of the Funds (the “Managers”), substantially all of the mutual funds then managed by the Managers (the “Defendant Funds”), and Board members of the Defendant Funds (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaints alleged, among other things, that CGM created various undisclosed incentives for its brokers to sell Smith Barney and Salomon Brothers funds. In addition, according to the complaints, the Managers caused the Defendant Funds to pay excessive brokerage commissions to CGM for steering clients towards proprietary funds. The complaints also alleged that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Defendant Funds by improperly charging Rule 12b-1 fees and by drawing on fund assets to make undisclosed payments of soft dollars and excessive brokerage commissions. The complaints also alleged that the Defendant Funds failed to adequately disclose certain of the allegedly wrongful conduct. The complaints sought injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, rescission of the Defendant Funds’ contracts with the Managers, recovery of all fees paid to the Managers pursuant to such contracts and an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
On December 15, 2004, a consolidated amended complaint (the “Complaint”) was filed alleging substantially similar causes of action. On May 27, 2005, all of the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint. On July 26, 2006, the court issued a decision and order (1) finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue on behalf of the shareholders of the Funds in which none of the plaintiffs had invested and dismissing those Funds from the case (although stating that they could be brought back into the case if standing as to them could be established), and (2) other than one stayed claim, dismissing all of the causes of action against the remaining Defendants, with prejudice, except for the cause of action under Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act, which the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead as a derivative claim.
On October 16, 2006, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”) which alleges derivative claims on behalf of nine funds identified in the Second Amended Complaint, under Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act, against Citigroup Asset Management (“CAM”), SBAM and SBFM as investment advisers to the identified funds, as well as CGM as a distributor for the identified funds (collectively, the “Second Amended Complaint Defendants”). The Fund was not identified in the Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint alleges no claims against any of the funds or any of their Board Members. Under Section 36(b), the Second Amended
Prime Cash Reserves Portfolio 2010 Semi-Annual Report | 31
(Prior to May 31, 2010, the Fund is known as Western Asset / CitiSM Institutional Cash Reserves)
Complaint alleges similar facts and seeks similar relief against the Second Amended Complaint Defendants as the Complaint.
On December 3, 2007, the court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On January 2, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit took place on March 5, 2009. The parties currently are awaiting a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Additional lawsuits arising out of these circumstances and presenting similar allegations and requests for relief may be filed in the future.
* * *
Beginning in August 2005, five class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws and state law were filed against CGM and SBFM based on the May 31, 2005 settlement order issued against CGM and SBFM by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaints seek injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, removal of SBFM as the adviser for the Smith Barney family of funds, rescission of the Funds’ management and other contracts with SBFM, recovery of all fees paid to SBFM pursuant to such contracts and an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
The five actions were subsequently consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed. On September 26, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order dismissing the consolidated complaint, and judgment was entered. An appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After full briefing, oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit took place on March 4, 2009. On February 16, 2010, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its opinion affirming the dismissal, in part, and vacating and remanding, in part. The opinion affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act but vacated the dismissal of the Section 10(b) securities fraud claim. The case has been remanded to Judge Pauley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
5. Other matters
On or about May 30, 2006, John Halebian, a purported shareholder of Western Asset New York Tax Free Money Market Fund (known as Western Asset New York Tax Free Money Market Fund effective May 31, 2010, prior to May 31, 2010, the Fund is known as Western Asset / CitiSM New York Tax Free Reserves, and prior to June 1, 2009, formerly known as CitiSM New York Tax Free Reserves), a series of Legg Mason Partners Money Market Trust, formerly a series of CitiFunds Trust III (the “Subject Trust”), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the independent trustees of the Subject Trust (Elliott J. Berv, Donald M. Carlton, A. Benton Cocanougher, Mark T. Finn, Stephen Randolph Gross, Diana R. Harrington, Susan B. Kerley, Alan G. Merten and R. Richardson Pettit).
The Subject Trust is also named in the complaint as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges both derivative claims on behalf of the Subject Trust and class claims on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the Subject Trust in connection with the 2005 sale of Citigroup’s asset management business to Legg Mason and the related approval of new investment advisory agreements by the trustees and shareholders. In the derivative claim, the plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the independent trustees breached their fiduciary duty to the Subject Trust and its shareholders by failing to negotiate lower fees or seek competing bids from other qualified investment advisers in connection with Citigroup’s sale to Legg Mason. In the claims brought on behalf of the putative class of shareholders, the plaintiff alleges that the independent trustees violated the proxy solicitation requirements of the 1940 Act, and breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders, by virtue of the voting procedures, including “echo voting,” used to obtain approval of the new investment advisory agreements and statements made in a proxy statement regarding those voting procedures. The plaintiff alleges that the proxy statement was misleading because it failed to disclose that the voting procedures
32 | Prime Cash Reserves Portfolio 2010 Semi-Annual Report
Notes to financial statements (unaudited) (cont’d)
violated the 1940 Act. The relief sought includes an award of damages, rescission of the advisory agreement, and an award of costs and attorney fees.
In advance of filing the complaint, Mr. Halebian’s lawyers made written demand for relief on the Board of the Subject Trust, and the Board’s independent trustees formed a demand review committee to investigate the matters raised in the demand, and subsequently in the complaint, and recommend a course of action to the Board. The committee, after a thorough review, determined that the independent trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties as alleged by Mr. Halebian, and that the action demanded by Mr. Halebian would not be in the best interests of the Subject Trust. The Board of the Subject Trust (the trustee who is an “interested person” of the Subject Trust, within the meaning of the 1940 Act, having recused himself from the matter), after receiving and considering the committee’s report and based upon the findings of the committee, subsequently also determined and, adopting the recommendation of the committee, directed counsel to move to dismiss Mr. Halebian’s complaint. A motion to dismiss was filed on October 23, 2006. Opposition papers were filed on or about December 7, 2006. The complaint was dismissed on July 31, 2007. Mr. Halebian filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 29, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the propriety of the district court’s dismissal depended upon an unsettled question of Massachusetts state law better addressed by a Massachusetts court and certified the question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Briefing and oral argument are expected to occur during 2010.
Prime Cash Reserves Portfolio | 33
Board approval of management and subadvisory agreements (unaudited)
At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees of Master Portfolio Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 9-10, 2009, the Board, including the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) between the Trust and Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC (the “Manager”) with respect to the Prime Cash Reserves Portfolio, a series of the Trust (the “Fund”), and the sub-advisory agreement (the “Sub-Advisory Agreement”) between the Manager and Western Asset Management Company (the “Subadviser”), an affiliate of the Manager, with respect to the Fund.
Background
The Board received information in advance of the meeting from the Manager to assist it in its consideration of the Management Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement and was given the opportunity to ask questions and request additional information from management. In addition, the Independent Trustees submitted questions to management before the Meeting and considered the responses provided by management before the Meeting. The Board received and considered a variety of information about the Manager and the Subadviser, as well as the management and sub-advisory arrangements for the Fund and other funds overseen by the Board, certain portions of which are discussed below. The Board noted that the Fund is a “master fund” in a “master-feeder” structure, whereby each feeder fund has the same investment objective and policies as the Fund and invests substantially all of its assets in the Fund. The presentation made to the Board encompassed the Fund and all funds for which the Board has responsibility, including the following feeder fund in the Fund (the “Feeder Fund”): Western Asset / CitiSM Institutional Cash Reserves, a series of Legg Mason Partners Institutional Trust. The discussion below covers both the advisory and the administrative functions being rendered by the Manager, both of which functions are encompassed by the Management Agreement, as well as the advisory functions rendered by the Subadviser pursuant to the Sub-Advisory Agreement.
Board approval of management agreement and sub-advisory agreement
The Independent Trustees were advised by separate independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting, the Independent Trustees received a memorandum from their independent legal counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Management Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Management Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of the Manager or Subadviser were present. In approving the Management Agreement and Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, considered a variety of factors, including those factors discussed below. No single factor reviewed by the Board was identified by the Board as the principal factor in determining whether to approve the Management Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement, and each Trustee may have attributed different weight to the various factors.
Nature, extent and quality of the services under the management agreement and sub-advisory agreement
The Board received and considered information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided to the Fund by the Manager and the Subadviser under the Management Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement, respectively, during the past year. The Board noted information received at regular meetings throughout the year related to the services rendered by the Manager in its management of the Fund’s affairs and the Manager’s role in coordinating the activities of the Fund’s other service providers. The Board’s evaluation of the services provided by the Manager and the Subadviser took into account the Board’s knowledge and familiarity gained as Trustees of funds in the Legg Mason fund complex, including the scope and quality of the investment management and other
34 | Prime Cash Reserves Portfolio
Board approval of management and subadvisory agreements (unaudited) (cont’d)
capabilities of the Manager and the Subadviser, and the quality of the Manager’s administrative and other services. The Board observed that the scope of services provided by the Manager and the Subadviser had continued to expand as a result of regulatory, market and other developments, including maintaining and monitoring their own and the Fund’s compliance programs. The Board also noted that on a regular basis it received and reviewed information from the Manager and the Subadviser regarding the Fund’s compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act.
The Board reviewed the qualifications, backgrounds and responsibilities of the Fund’s senior personnel and the portfolio management team primarily responsible for the day-to-day portfolio management of the Fund. The Board also considered, based on its knowledge of the Manager and its affiliates, the financial resources of Legg Mason, Inc., the parent organization of the Manager and the Subadviser. The Board recognized the importance of having a money fund manager with significant resources.
The Board considered the division of responsibilities between the Manager and the Subadviser and the oversight provided by the Manager. The Board also considered the Manager’s and the Subadviser’s brokerage policies and practices. In addition, management also reported to the Board on, among other things, its business plans and organizational changes. The Board concluded that, overall, the nature, extent and quality of services provided (and expected to be provided) under the Management Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement were satisfactory.
Fund performance
In considering the performance of the Fund, the Board received and considered performance information for the Feeder Fund as well as for a group of funds (the “Performance Universe”) selected by Lipper, Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent provider of investment company data, for the Feeder Fund. The Board noted that the Feeder Fund’s performance was the same as the performance of the Fund (except for the effect of fees at the Feeder Fund level), and therefore relevant to the Board’s conclusions regarding the Fund’s performance. The Board was provided with a description of the methodology Lipper used to determine the similarity of the Feeder Fund with the funds included in its Performance Universe. The Board also noted that it had received and discussed with management information throughout the year at periodic intervals comparing the Feeder Fund’s performance against its benchmark and against its peers. In addition, the Board considered the Feeder Fund’s performance in light of overall financial market conditions.
The information comparing the Feeder Fund’s performance to that of its Performance Universe, consisting of all funds classified as institutional money market funds by Lipper, showed, among other data, that the Feeder Fund’s performance for the 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year periods ended June 30, 2009 was above the median.
Based on its review, which included careful consideration of all of the factors noted above, the Board concluded that the performance of the Fund was satisfactory.
Management fees and expense ratios
The Board reviewed and considered the contractual management fee payable by the Fund to the Manager and the actual management fees in light of the nature, extent and quality of the management and sub-advisory services provided by the Manager and the Subadviser. The Board also considered the fact that fee waiver and/or expense reimbursement arrangements are currently in place for the Feeder Fund and are expected to continue through December 2011. In addition, the Board noted that the compensation paid to the Subadviser is paid by the Manager, not the Fund, and, accordingly, that the retention of the Subadviser does not increase the fees or expenses otherwise incurred by the Fund’s shareholders.
Prime Cash Reserves Portfolio | 35
The Board also received and considered information comparing the Feeder Fund’s contractual management fee (the “Contractual Management Fee”) and the actual fee rate (after taking waivers and reimbursements into account) (the “Actual Management Fee”) and the Feeder Fund’s total actual expenses with those of funds in both the relevant expense group and a broader group of funds, each selected and provided by Lipper. The Board noted that the Feeder Fund’s assets represented a significant portion of the Fund’s assets. The Board noted that the Feeder Fund’s expense information reflected both management fees and total expenses payable by the Feeder Fund as well as management fees and total expenses payable by the Fund, and therefore was relevant to the Board’s conclusions regarding the Fund’s expenses. The Board also reviewed information regarding fees charged by the Manager to other U.S. clients investing primarily in an asset class similar to that of the Fund, including, where applicable, separate accounts.
The Manager reviewed with the Board the differences in the scope of services provided to the Fund and to these other clients, noting that the Fund is provided with administrative services (including services related to the preparation and maintenance of the Fund’s registration statement and shareholder reports, as well as calculation of the Fund’s net asset value on a daily basis), office facilities, Fund officers (including the Fund’s chief executive, chief financial and chief compliance officers), and that the Manager coordinates and oversees the provision of services to the Fund by other Fund service providers. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage these different types of accounts. The Board also considered and discussed information about the Subadviser’s fees, including the amount of the management fees retained by the Manager after payment of the subadvisory fee. The Board also received an analysis of complex-wide management fees provided by the Manager, which, among other things, set out a framework of fees based on asset classes.
The information comparing the Feeder Fund’s Contractual and Actual Management Fees as well as its actual total expense ratio to its Lipper expense group, consisting of a group of funds (including the Feeder Fund) classified as institutional money market funds and chosen by Lipper to be comparable to the Fund, showed that the Fund’s Contractual Management Fee and Actual Management Fee were below the median. The Board noted that the Fund’s actual total expense ratio was below the median.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the Board determined that the management fee and the subadvisory fees for the Fund were reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided to the Fund under the Management Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement.
Manager profitability
The Board received and considered an analysis of the profitability of the Manager and its affiliates in providing services to the Fund. The Board also received profitability information with respect to the Legg Mason fund complex as a whole. In addition, the Board received information with respect to the Manager’s allocation methodologies used in preparing this profitability data. It was noted that the allocation methodologies had been reviewed by an outside consultant two years ago. The profitability of the Manager and its affiliates was considered by the Board not excessive in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided to the Fund and the type of fund it represented.
Economies of scale
The Board received and discussed information concerning whether the Manager realizes economies of scale as the Fund’s assets grow. The Board noted that although the Feeder Fund’s Contractual Management Fee does not contain breakpoints, it is approximately equivalent to the asset-weighted average of management fees paid by the funds in its Lipper expense group at all asset levels and that the Actual Management Fee is below the median of the Lipper expense group. The Board also considered that the Manager pays the subadvisory fee out of the management fee.
36 | Prime Cash Reserves Portfolio
Board approval of management and subadvisory agreements (unaudited) (cont’d)
The Board determined that the management fee structure for the Fund was reasonable.
Other benefits to the manager and the subadviser
The Board considered other benefits received by the Manager, the Subadviser and their affiliates as a result of their relationship with the Fund, including the opportunity to offer additional products and services to Fund shareholders.
In light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Fund and the ongoing commitment of the Manager and the Subadviser to the Fund, the Board considered that the ancillary benefits that the Manager and its affiliates received were reasonable.
* * *
In light of all of the foregoing, the Board determined that the continuation of each of the Management Agreement and Sub-Advisory Agreement would be in the best interests of the Fund’s shareholders and approved the continuation of such agreements for another year.
| ITEM 2. | CODE OF ETHICS. |
| |
| | Not applicable. |
| |
| ITEM 3. | AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT. |
| |
| | Not applicable. |
| |
| ITEM 4. | PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES. |
| |
| | Not applicable. |
| |
| ITEM 5. | AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS. |
| |
| | Not applicable. |
| |
| ITEM 6. | SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS. |
| |
| | Included herein under Item 1. |
| |
| ITEM 7. | DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES. |
| |
| | Not applicable. |
| |
| ITEM 8. | PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES. |
| |
| | Not applicable. |
| |
| ITEM 9. | PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS. |
| |
| | Not applicable. |
| |
| ITEM 10. | SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS. |
| |
| | Not applicable. |
| |
| ITEM 11. | CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
| |
| | (a) | The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) are effective as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this report that includes the disclosure required by this paragraph, based on their evaluation of the disclosure controls and procedures required by Rule 30a-3(b) under the 1940 Act and 15d-15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. |
| |
| | (b) | There were no changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the 1940 Act) that occurred during the registrant’s last fiscal half-year (the registrant’s second fiscal half-year in the case of an annual report) that have materially affected, or are likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. |
| | |
ITEM 12. | EXHIBITS. |
| |
| (a) (1) Not applicable. |
| Exhibit 99.CODE ETH |
| |
| (a) (2) Certifications pursuant to section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 attached hereto. |
| Exhibit 99.CERT |
| |
| (b) Certifications pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 attached hereto. |
| Exhibit 99.906CERT |
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, there unto duly authorized.
Master Portfolio Trust
| |
By: | /s/ R. Jay Gerken | |
| R. Jay Gerken |
| Chief Executive Officer of |
| Master Portfolio Trust |
| |
Date: | April 29, 2010 |
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
| |
By: | /s/ R. Jay Gerken | |
| R. Jay Gerken |
| Chief Executive Officer of |
| Master Portfolio Trust |
| |
Date: | April 29, 2010 |
| |
By: | /s/ Frances M. Guggino | |
| Frances M. Guggino |
| Chief Financial Officer of |
| Master Portfolio Trust |
| |
Date: | April 29, 2010 |
