UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM N-CSR/A
CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES
Investment Company Act file number 811-08788
Templeton Russia and East European Fund, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
300 S.E. 2nd Street, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301-1923
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)
Craig S. Tyle, One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403-1906
(Name and address of agent for service)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (954) 527-7500_
Date of fiscal year end: _3/31
Date of reporting period: 3/31/10___
Item 1. Reports to Stockholders.
There were no changes to Item 1 the Report to Shareholders that was filed on May 27, 2010, accession number 0000930828-10-000007.
Item 2. Code of Ethics.
(a) The Registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to its principal executive officers and principal financial and accounting officer.
(c) N/A
(d) N/A
(f) Pursuant to Item 12(a)(1), the Registrant is attaching as an exhibit a copy of its code of ethics that applies to its principal executive officers and principal financial and accounting officer.
Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.
(a)(1) The Registrant has an audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee.
(2) The audit committee financial expert is David W. Niemiec and he is "independent" as defined under the relevant Securities and Exchange Commission Rules and Releases.
Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
(a) Audit Fees
The aggregate fees paid to the principal accountant for professional services rendered by the principal accountant for the audit of the registrant’s annual financial statements or for services that are normally provided by the principal accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements were $40,830 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 and $41,215 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.
(b) Audit-Related Fees
There were no fees paid to the principal accountant for assurance and related services rendered by the principal accountant to the registrant that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrant's financial statements and are not reported under paragraph (a) of Item 4.
There were no fees paid to the principal accountant for assurance and related services rendered by the principal accountant to the registrant's investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of their financial statements.
(c) Tax Fees
There were no fees paid to the principal accountant for professional services rendered by the principal accountant to the registrant for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning.
The aggregate fees paid to the principal accountant for professional services rendered by the principal accountant to the registrant’s investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning were $2,762 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 and $4,000 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009. The services for which these fees were paid included tax compliance and advice.
(d) All Other Fees
The aggregate fees paid to the principal accountant for products and services rendered by the principal accountant to the registrant not reported in paragraphs (a)-(c) of Item 4 were $0 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 and $248 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009. The services for which these fees were paid included review of materials provided to the fund Board in connection with the investment management contract renewal process.
The aggregate fees paid to the principal accountant for products and services rendered by the principal accountant to the registrant’s investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant other than services reported in paragraphs (a)-(c) of Item 4 were $0 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 and $283,829 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009. The services for which these fees were paid included review of materials provided to the fund Board in connection with the investment management contract renewal process.
(e) (1) The registrant’s audit committee is directly responsible for approving the services to be provided by the auditors, including:
(i) pre-approval of all audit and audit related services;
(ii) pre-approval of all non-audit related services to be provided to the Fund by the auditors;
(iii) pre-approval of all non-audit related services to be provided to the registrant by the auditors to the registrant’s investment adviser or to any entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the registrant’s investment adviser and that provides ongoing services to the registrant where the non-audit services relate directly to the operations or financial reporting of the registrant; and
(iv) establishment by the audit committee, if deemed necessary or appropriate, as an alternative to committee pre-approval of services to be provided by the auditors, as required by paragraphs (ii) and (iii) above, of policies and procedures to permit such services to be pre-approved by other means, such as through establishment of guidelines or by action of a designated member or members of the committee; provided the policies and procedures are detailed as to the particular service and the committee is informed of each service and such policies and procedures do not include delegation of audit committee responsibilities, as contemplated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to management; subject, in the case of (ii) through (iv), to any waivers, exceptions or exemptions that may be available under applicable law or rules.
(e) (2) None of the services provided to the registrant described in paragraphs (b)-(d) of Item 4 were approved by the audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of regulation S-X.
(f) No disclosures are required by this Item 4(f).
(g) The aggregate non-audit fees paid to the principal accountant for services rendered by the principal accountant to the registrant and the registrant’s investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant were $2,762 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 and $288,077 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.
(h) The registrant’s audit committee of the board has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the registrant’s investment adviser (not including any sub-adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser), and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were not pre-approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.
Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.
Members of the Audit Committee are: Ann Torre Bates, Frank J. Crothers, David W. Niemiec and Constantine D. Tseretopoulos.
Item 6. Schedule of Investments. N/A
Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.
The board of directors of the Fund has delegated the authority to vote proxies related to the portfolio securities held by the Fund to the Fund’s manager Templeton Asset Management Ltd. (TAML) in accordance with the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (Policies) adopted by the manager.
The manager has delegated its administrative duties with respect to the voting of proxies to the Proxy Group within Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC (Proxy Group), an affiliate and wholly owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc. All proxies received by the Proxy Group will be voted based upon the manager’s instructions and/or policies. The manager votes proxies solely in the interests of the Fund and its shareholders.
To assist it in analyzing proxies, the manager subscribes to RiskMetrics Group (RiskMetrics), an unaffiliated third-party corporate governance research service that provides in-depth analyses of shareholder meeting agendas, vote recommendations, recordkeeping and vote disclosure services. In addition, the manager subscribes to Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (Glass Lewis), an unaffiliated third-party analytical research firm, to receive analyses and vote recommendations on the shareholder meetings of publicly held U.S. companies. Although RiskMetrics’ and/or Glass Lewis’ analyses are thoroughly reviewed and considered in making a final voting decision, the manager does not consider recommendations from RiskMetrics, Glass Lewis or any other third party to be determinative of the manager’s ultimate decision. As a matter of policy, the officers, directors/trustees and employees of the manager and the Proxy Group will not be influenced by outside sources whose interests conflict with the interests of the Fund and its shareholders. Efforts are made to resolve all conflicts in the interests of the manager’s clients. Material conflicts of interest are identified by the Proxy Group based upon analyses of client, distributor, broker dealer and vendor lists, information periodically gathered from directors and officers, and information derived from other sources, including public filings. In situations where a material conflict of interest is identified, the Proxy Group may defer to the voting recommendation of RiskMetrics, Glass Lewis or those of another independent third-party provider of proxy services; or send the proxy directly to the Fund with the manager’s recommendation regarding the vote for approval. If the conflict is not resolved by the Fund, the Proxy Group may refer the matter, along with the recommended course of action by the manager, if any, to an interdepartmental Proxy Review Committee (which may include portfolio managers and/or research analysts employed by the manager), for evaluation and voting instructions. The Proxy Review Committee may defer to the voting recommendation of RiskMetrics, Glass Lewis or those of another independent third-party provider of proxy services; or send the proxy directly to the Fund. Where the Proxy Group or the Proxy Review Committee refers a matter to the Fund, it may rely upon the instructions of a representative of the Fund, such as the board or a committee of the board.
Where a material conflict of interest has been identified, but the items on which the manager’s vote recommendations differ from Glass Lewis, RiskMetrics, or another independent third-party provider of proxy services relate specifically to (1) shareholder proposals regarding social or environmental issues or political contributions, (2) “Other Business” without describing the matters that might be considered, or (3) items the manager wishes to vote in opposition to the recommendations of an issuer’s management, the Proxy Group may defer to the vote recommendations of the manager rather than sending the proxy directly to the Fund for approval.
To avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, the manager will employ echo voting, if possible, in the following instances: (1) when the Fund invests in an underlying fund in reliance on any one of Sections 12(d)(1)(E), (F), or (G) of the 1940 Act, or pursuant to an SEC exemptive order; (2) when the Fund invests uninvested cash in affiliated money market funds pursuant to an SEC exemptive order (“cash sweep arrangement”); or (3) when required pursuant to the Fund’s governing documents or applicable law. Echo voting means that the investment manager will vote the shares in the same proportion as the vote of all of the other holders of the Fund’s shares.
The recommendation of management on any issue is a factor that the manager considers in determining how proxies should be voted. However, the manager does not consider recommendations from management to be determinative of the manager’s ultimate decision. As a matter of practice, the votes with respect to most issues are cast in accordance with the position of the company's management. Each issue, however, is considered on its own merits, and the manager will not support the position of the company's management in any situation where it deems that the ratification of management’s position would adversely affect the investment merits of owning that company’s shares.
Manager’s proxy voting policies and principles The manager has adopted general proxy voting guidelines, which are summarized below. These guidelines are not an exhaustive list of all the issues that may arise and the manager cannot anticipate all future situations. In all cases, each proxy will be considered based on the relevant facts and circumstances.
Board of directors. The manager supports an independent board of directors, and prefers that key committees such as audit, nominating, and compensation committees be comprised of independent directors. The manager will generally vote against management efforts to classify a board and will generally support proposals to declassify the board of directors. The manager may withhold votes from directors who have attended less than 75% of meetings without a valid reason. While generally in favor of separating Chairman and CEO positions, the manager will review this issue as well as proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors such as the company’s corporate governance guidelines or provisions and performance.
Ratification of auditors of portfolio companies. The manager will closely scrutinize the role and performance of auditors. On a case-by-case basis, the manager will examine proposals relating to non-audit relationships and non-audit fees. The manager will also consider, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to rotate auditors, and will vote against the ratification of auditors when there is clear and compelling evidence of accounting irregularities or negligence.
Management and director compensation. A company’s equity-based compensation plan should be in alignment with its shareholders’ long-term interests. The manager believes that executive compensation should be directly linked to the performance of the company. The manager evaluates plans on a case-by-case basis by considering several factors to determine whether the plan is fair and reasonable, including the RiskMetrics quantitative model utilized to assess such plans and/or the Glass Lewis evaluation of the plans. The manager will generally oppose plans that have the potential to be excessively dilutive, and will almost always oppose plans that are structured to allow the repricing of underwater options, or plans that have an automatic share replenishment “evergreen” feature. The manager will generally support employee stock option plans in which the purchase price is at least 85% of fair market value, and when potential dilution is 10% or less.
Severance compensation arrangements will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, although the manager will generally oppose “golden parachutes” that are considered to be excessive. The manager will normally support proposals that require a percentage of directors’ compensation to be in the form of common stock, as it aligns their interests with those of shareholders.
Anti-takeover mechanisms and related issues. The manager generally opposes anti-takeover measures since they tend to reduce shareholder rights. However, as with all proxy issues, the manager conducts an independent review of each anti-takeover proposal. On occasion, the manager may vote with management when the research analyst has concluded that the proposal is not onerous and would not harm the Fund or its shareholders’ interests. The manager generally supports proposals that require shareholder rights’ plans (“poison pills”) to be subject to a shareholder vote and will closely evaluate such plans on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they warrant support. In addition, the manager will generally vote against any proposal to issue stock that has unequal or subordinate voting rights. The manager generally opposes any supermajority voting requirements as well as the payment of “greenmail.” The manager generally supports “fair price” provisions and confidential voting.
Changes to capital structure. The manager realizes that a company's financing decisions have a significant impact on its shareholders, particularly when they involve the issuance of additional shares of common or preferred stock or the assumption of additional debt. The manager will review, on a case-by-case basis, proposals by companies to increase authorized shares and the purpose for the increase. The manager will generally not vote in favor of dual-class capital structures to increase the number of authorized shares where that class of stock would have superior voting rights. The manager will generally vote in favor of the issuance of preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock issuance are deemed reasonable.
Mergers and corporate restructuring. Mergers and acquisitions will be subject to careful review by the research analyst to determine whether they would be beneficial to shareholders. The manager will analyze various economic and strategic factors in making the final decision on a merger or acquisition. Corporate restructuring proposals are also subject to a thorough examination on a case-by-case basis.
Social and corporate policy issues. The manager will generally give management discretion with regard to social, environmental and ethical issues, although the manager may vote in favor of those that are believed to have significant economic benefits or implications for the Fund and its shareholders.
Global corporate governance. Many of the tenets discussed above are applied to the manager’s proxy voting decisions for international investments. However, the manager must be flexible in these instances and must be mindful of the varied market practices of each region.
The manager will attempt to process every proxy it receives for all domestic and foreign issuers. However, there may be situations in which the manager cannot process proxies, for example, where a meeting notice was received too late, or sell orders preclude the ability to vote. If a security is on loan, the manager may determine that it is not in the best interests of the Fund to recall the security for voting purposes. Also, the manager may abstain from voting under certain circumstances or vote against items such as “Other Business” when the manager is not given adequate information from the company.
Shareholders may view the complete Policies online at franklintempleton.com. Alternatively, shareholders may request copies of the Policies free of charge by calling the Proxy Group collect at (954)527-7678 or by sending a written request to: Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC, 500 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394, Attention: Proxy Group. Copies of the Fund’s proxy voting records are available online at franklintempleton.com and posted on the SEC website at www.sec.gov. The proxy voting records are updated each year by August 31 to reflect the most recent 12-month period ended June 30.
Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.
(a)(1) As of May 27, 2010, the portfolio managers of the Fund are as follows:
MARK MOBIUS, Ph.D, Managing Director of TAML
Dr. Mobius has been a lead portfolio manager of the Fund since inception. He has primary responsibility for the investments of the Fund, and has final authority over all aspects of the Fund's investment portfolio, including but not limited to, purchases and sales of individual securities, portfolio risk assessment, and the management of daily cash balances in accordance with anticipated management requirements. The degree to which he may perform these functions, and the nature of these functions, may change from time to time. He joined Franklin Templeton Investments in 1987.
DENNIS LIM, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Director of TAML
Based in Singapore, Mr. Lim has been a portfolio manager of the Fund since 2000, providing research and advice on the purchases and sales of individual securities, and portfolio risk assessment. He joined Franklin Templeton Investments in 1990.
TOM WU, Director of TAML
Based in Hong Kong, Mr. Wu has been a portfolio manager of the Fund since inception, providing research and advice on the purchases and sales of individual securities, and portfolio risk assessment. He joined Franklin Templeton Investments in 1987.
(a)(2) This section reflects information about the portfolio managers as of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.
The following table shows the number of other accounts managed by each portfolio manager and the total assets in the accounts managed within each category:
Name | Number of Other Registered Investment Companies Managed | Assets of Other Registered Investment Companies Managed (x $1 million) | Number of Other Pooled Investment Vehicles Managed1 | Assets of Other Pooled Investment Vehicles Managed (x $1 million)1 | Number of Other Accounts Managed1 | Assets of Other Accounts Managed (x $1 million)1 |
Mark Mobius | 9 | 9,030.7 | 34 | 25,042.6 | 9 | 2,311.2 |
Dennis Lim | 6 | 6,896.5 | 5 | 1,066.9 | 2 | 319.5 |
Tom Wu | 6 | 6,896.5 | 4 | 1,819.9 | 1 | 170.8 |
1. The various pooled investment vehicles and accounts listed are managed by a team of investment professionals. Accordingly, the individual managers listed would not be solely responsible for managing such listed amounts.
Portfolio managers that provide investment services to the Fund may also provide services to a variety of other investment products, including other funds, institutional accounts and private accounts. The advisory fees for some of such other products and accounts may be different than that charged to the Fund and may include performance based compensation. This may result in fees that are higher (or lower) than the advisory fees paid by the Fund. As a matter of policy, each fund or account is managed solely for the benefit of the beneficial owners thereof. As discussed below, the separation of the trading execution function from the portfolio management function and the application of objectively based trade allocation procedures help to mitigate potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of the portfolio managers managing accounts with different advisory fees.
Conflicts. The management of multiple funds, including the Fund, and accounts may also give rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds and other accounts have different objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees as the portfolio manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. The manager seeks to manage such competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers by having portfolio managers focus on a particular investment discipline. Most other accounts managed by a portfolio manager are managed using the same investment strategies that are used in connection with the management of the Fund. Accordingly, portfolio holdings, position sizes, and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across similar portfolios, which may minimize the potential for conflicts of interest. As noted above, the separate management of the trade execution and valuation functions from the portfolio management process also helps to reduce potential conflicts of interest. However, securities selected for funds or accounts other than the Fund may outperform the securities selected for the Fund. Moreover, if a portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than one fund or other account, the Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of that opportunity across all eligible funds and other accounts. The manager seeks to manage such potential conflicts by using procedures intended to provide a fair allocation of buy and sell opportunities among funds and other accounts.
The structure of a portfolio manager’s compensation may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. A portfolio manager’s base pay and bonus tend to increase with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets under management. As such, there may be an indirect relationship between a portfolio manager’s marketing or sales efforts and his or her bonus.
Finally, the management of personal accounts by a portfolio manager may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. While the funds and the manager have adopted a code of ethics which they believe contains provisions reasonably necessary to prevent a wide range of prohibited activities by portfolio managers and others with respect to their personal trading activities, there can be no assurance that the code of ethics addresses all individual conduct that could result in conflicts of interest.
The manager and the Fund have adopted certain compliance procedures that are designed to address these, and other, types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict arises.
Compensation. The manager seeks to maintain a compensation program that is competitively positioned to attract, retain and motivate top-quality investment professionals. Portfolio managers receive a base salary, a cash incentive bonus opportunity, an equity compensation opportunity, and a benefits package. Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed annually and the level of compensation is based on individual performance, the salary range for a portfolio manager’s level of responsibility and Franklin Templeton guidelines. Portfolio managers are provided no financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. Each portfolio manager’s compensation consists of the following three elements:
Base salary Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.
Annual bonus Annual bonuses are structured to align the interests of the portfolio manager with those of the Fund’s shareholders. Each portfolio manager is eligible to receive an annual bonus. Bonuses generally are split between cash (50% to 65%) and restricted shares of a Franklin Templeton fund which vest over a three-year period (17.5% to 25%) and other mutual fund shares (17.5% to 25%). The deferred equity-based compensation is intended to build a vested interest of the portfolio manager in the financial performance of both Resources and mutual funds advised by the manager. The bonus plan is intended to provide a competitive level of annual bonus compensation that is tied to the portfolio manager achieving consistently strong investment performance, which aligns the financial incentives of the portfolio manager and Fund shareholders. The Chief Investment Officer of the manager and/or other officers of the manager, with responsibility for the Fund, have discretion in the granting of annual bonuses to portfolio managers in accordance with Franklin Templeton guidelines. The following factors are generally used in determining bonuses under the plan:
§ Investment performance. Primary consideration is given to the historic investment performance over the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as appropriate.
§ Non-investment performance. The more qualitative contributions of a portfolio manager to the manager’s business and the investment management team, including business knowledge, contribution to team efforts, mentoring of junior staff, and contribution to the marketing of the Fund, are evaluated in determining the amount of any bonus award.
§ Research. Where the portfolio management team also has research responsibilities, each portfolio manager is evaluated on the number and performance of recommendations over time.
§ Responsibilities. The characteristics and complexity of funds managed by the portfolio manager are factored in the manager’s appraisal.
Additional long-term equity-based compensation Portfolio managers may also be awarded restricted shares or units of one or more mutual funds, and options to purchase common shares of a Franklin Templeton fund. Awards of such deferred equity-based compensation typically vest over time, so as to create incentives to retain key talent.
Portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees of the manager.
Ownership of Fund shares. The manager has a policy of encouraging portfolio managers to invest in the funds they manage. Exceptions arise when, for example, a fund is closed to new investors or when tax considerations or jurisdictional constraints cause such an investment to be inappropriate for the portfolio manager. The following is the dollar range of Fund shares beneficially owned by each portfolio manager (such amounts may change from time to time):
Portfolio Manager | Dollar Range of Fund Shares Beneficially Owned |
Mark Mobius | None |
Dennis Lim | None |
Tom Wu | None |
Note: Because the portfolio managers are all foreign nationals, they do not hold shares in the U.S. registered Fund, however they own shares in other similar Franklin Templeton funds managed by them, registered offshore and appropriate for foreign nationals.
Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers. N/A
Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
There have been no changes to the procedures by which shareholders may recommend nominees to the Registrant's Board of Directors that would require disclosure herein.
Item 11. Controls and Procedures.
(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Registrant maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Registrant’s filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such information is accumulated and communicated to the Registrant’s management, including its principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. The Registrant’s management, including the principal executive officer and the principal financial officer, recognizes that any set of controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives.
Within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Shareholder Report on Form N-CSR, the Registrant had carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of the Registrant’s management, including the Registrant’s principal executive officer and the Registrant’s principal financial officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures. Based on such evaluation, the Registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.
(b) Changes in Internal Controls. There have been no significant changes in the Registrant’s internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect the internal controls subsequent to the date of their evaluation in connection with the preparation of this Shareholder Report on Form N-CSR.
Item 12. Exhibits.
(a)(1) Code of Ethics
(a)(2) Certifications pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 of Laura F. Fergerson, Chief Executive Officer - Finance and Administration, and Mark H. Otani, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
(b) Certifications pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 of Laura F. Fergerson, Chief Executive Officer - Finance and Administration, and Mark H. Otani, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
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, thereunto duly authorized.
TEMPLETON RUSSIA AND EAST EUROPEAN FUND, INC.
By /s/ LAURA F. FERGERSON
Laura F. Fergerson
Chief Executive Officer - Finance and
Administration
Date November 29, 2011
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/ LAURA F. FERGERSON
Laura F. Fergerson
Chief Executive Officer - Finance and
Administration
Date November 29, 2011
By /s/ MARK H. OTANI
Mark H. Otani
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer
Date November 29, 2011
