EMO ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSR

 

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED

MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

 

Investment Company Act file number 811-22546

 

ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

 

620 Eighth Avenue, 47th Floor, New York, NY 10018

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

 

Marc A. De Oliveira

Franklin Templeton

100 First Stamford Place

Stamford, CT 06902

(Name and address of agent for service)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 1-888-777-0102

 

Date of fiscal year end: November 30

 

Date of reporting period: November 30, 2024

ITEM 1.

REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS.

 

The Annual Report to Stockholders is filed herewith.

 

ITEM 2.

CODE OF ETHICS.

 

The registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the registrant’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller.

 

ITEM 3.

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.

The Board of Directors of the registrant has determined that Eileen A. Kamerick and Nisha Kumar, are the members of the Board’s Audit Committee, possesses the technical attributes identified in Instruction 2(b) of Item 3 to Form N-CSR to qualify as an “audit committee financial experts”.

 

Item 4.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

 

(a) Audit Fees. The aggregate fees billed in the previous fiscal years ending November 30, 2023 and November 30, 2024 (the “Reporting Periods”) for professional services rendered by the Registrant’s principal accountant (the “Auditor”) for the audit of the Registrant’s annual financial statements, or services that are normally provided by the Auditor in connection with the statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for the Reporting Periods, were $105,000 in November 30, 2023 and $111,300 in November 30, 2024.

 

(b) Audit-Related Fees. The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Period for assurance and related services by the Auditor that are reasonably related to the performance of the Registrant’s financial statements were $0 in November 30, 2023 and $0 in November 30, 2024.

 

(c) Tax Fees. The aggregate fees billed by PwC for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning services, which include the filing and amendment of federal, state and local income tax returns and tax distribution and analysis planning to the Fund for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2023 and November 30, 2024 were $151,542 and $235,853, respectively. These services consisted of (i) review or preparation of U.S. federal, state, local and excise tax returns and refund claims ($151,542 and $199,242 for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2023 and November 30, 2024, respectively) and (ii) U.S. federal, state and local tax planning, advice and assistance regarding statutory, regulatory or administrative developments and other tax advice ($0 and $36,611 for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2023 and November 30, 2024, respectively).

 

There were no fees billed by PwC to the Service Affiliates for tax services for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2023 and November 30, 2024 that were required to be approved by the Fund’s Audit Committee.

 

(d) All Other Fees. The aggregate fees for other fees billed in the Reporting Periods for products and services provided by the Auditor, other than the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Item for the ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc. were $0 in November 30, 2023 and $11,000 in November 30, 2024.

 

All Other Fees. There were no other non-audit services rendered by the Auditor to Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisors, LLC (“LMPFA”), and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with LMPFA that provided ongoing services to ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc. requiring pre-approval by the Audit Committee in the Reporting Period.

 

(e) Audit Committee’s pre—approval policies and procedures described in paragraph (c) (7) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(1) The Charter for the Audit Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of each registered investment company (the “Fund”) advised by LMPFA or one of their affiliates (each, an “Adviser”) requires that the Committee shall approve (a) all audit and permissible non-audit services to be provided to the Fund and (b) all permissible non-audit services to be provided by the Fund’s independent auditors to the Adviser and any Covered Service Providers if the engagement relates directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Fund. The Committee may implement policies and procedures by which such services are approved other than by the full Committee.

 

The Committee shall not approve non-audit services that the Committee believes may impair the independence of the auditors. As of the date of the approval of this Audit Committee Charter, permissible non-audit services include any professional services (including tax services), that are not prohibited services as described below, provided to the Fund by the independent auditors, other than those provided to the Fund in connection with an audit or a review of the financial statements of the Fund. Permissible non-audit services may not include: (i) bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements of the Fund; (ii) financial information systems design and implementation; (iii) appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions or contribution-in-kind reports; (iv) actuarial services; (v) internal audit outsourcing services; (vi) management functions or human resources; (vii) broker or dealer, investment adviser or investment banking services; (viii) legal services and expert services unrelated to the audit; and (ix) any other service the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board determines, by regulation, is impermissible.

 

Pre-approval by the Committee of any permissible non-audit services is not required so long as: (i) the aggregate amount of all such permissible non-audit services provided to the Fund, the Adviser and any service providers controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser that provide ongoing services to the Fund (“Covered Service Providers”) constitutes not more than 5% of the total amount of revenues paid to the independent auditors during the fiscal year in which the permissible non-audit services are provided to (a) the Fund, (b) the Adviser and (c) any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser that provides ongoing services to the Fund during the fiscal year in which the services are provided that would have to be approved by the Committee; (ii) the permissible non-audit services were not recognized by the Fund at the time of the engagement to be non-audit services; and (iii) such services are promptly brought to the attention of the Committee and approved by the Committee (or its delegate(s)) prior to the completion of the audit.

 

(2) None of the services described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this Item were performed in reliance on paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

 

(f) Not applicable.

 

(g) Non-audit fees billed by the Auditor for services rendered to ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc., LMPFA and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with LMPFA that provides ongoing services to ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc. during the reporting period were $269,700 in November 30, 2023 and $278,251 in November 30, 2024.

 

(h) Yes. ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc.’s Audit Committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to Service Affiliates, which were not pre-approved (not requiring pre-approval), is compatible with maintaining the Accountant’s independence. All services provided by the Auditor to the ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc. or to Service Affiliates, which were required to be pre-approved, were pre-approved as required.

 

(i) Not applicable.

 

(j) Not applicable.

ITEM 5.

AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS.

 

a) Registrant has a separately-designated standing Audit Committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)58(A) of the Exchange Act. The Audit Committee consists of the following Board members:

 

Robert D. Agdern

Carol L. Colman

Daniel P. Cronin*

Paolo M. Cucchi*

Anthony Grillo**

Eileen A. Kamerick

Nisha Kumar

Peter Mason**

Hillary A. Sale**

 

* Effective December 31, 2024, Messrs. Cronin and Cucchi resigned from the Audit Committee.

 

** Effective November 15, 2024, Ms. Sale and Messrs. Grillo and Mason became members of the Audit Committee.

 

b) Not applicable

 

ITEM 6.

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS.

 

Included herein under Item 1.

 

ITEM 7.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND FINANCIAL HIGLIGHTS FOR OPEN-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

 

Not applicable.

 

ITEM 8.

CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS FOR OPEN-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

 

Not applicable.

 

ITEM 9.

PROXY DISCLOSURES FOR OPEN-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

 

Not applicable.

 

ITEM 10.

REMUNERATION PAID TO DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AND OTHERS OF OPEN-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

 

Not applicable.

 

ITEM 11.

STATEMENT REGARDING BASIS FOR APPROVAL OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY CONTRACT.

 

The information is disclosed as part of the Financial Statements included in Item 1 of this Form N-CSR, as applicable.

 

ITEM 12.

DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLOCIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

CLEARBRIDGE INVESTMENTS

 

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

 

AMENDED AS OF SEPTEMBER 2023

 

I.

Types of Accounts for Which ClearBridge Votes Proxies

II.

General Guidelines

III.

How ClearBridge Votes

IV.

Conflicts of Interest

A.

Procedures for Identifying Conflicts of Interest

B.

Procedures for Assessing Materiality of Conflicts of Interest and for Addressing Material Conflicts of Interest

C.

Third Party Proxy Voting Firm - Conflicts of Interest

V.

Voting Policy

A.

Election of Directors

B.

Proxy Contests

C.

Auditors

D.

Proxy Contest Defenses

E.

Tender Offer Defenses

F.

Miscellaneous Governance Provisions

G.

Capital Structure

H.

Executive and Director Compensation

I.

State/Country of Incorporation

J.

Mergers and Corporate Restructuring

K.

Social and Environmental Issues

L.

Miscellaneous

VI.

Other Considerations

A.

Share Blocking

B.

Securities on Loan

VII.

Disclosure of Proxy Voting

VIII.

Recordkeeping and Oversight

CLEARBRIDGE INVESTMENTS

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

I.

TYPES OF ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH CLEARBRIDGE VOTES PROXIES

ClearBridge votes proxies for each client for which it has investment discretion unless the investment management agreement provides that the client or other authorized party (e.g., a trustee or named fiduciary of a plan) is responsible for voting proxies.

II.

GENERAL GUIDELINES

In voting proxies, we are guided by general fiduciary principles. Our goal is to act prudently, solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the accounts we manage. We attempt to provide for the consideration of all factors that could affect the value of the investment and will vote proxies in the manner that we believe will be consistent with efforts to maximize shareholder values.

III.

HOW CLEARBRIDGE VOTES

Section V of these policies and procedures sets forth certain stated positions. In the case of a proxy issue for which there is a stated position, we generally vote in accordance with the stated position. In the case of a proxy issue for which there is a list of factors set forth in Section V that we consider in voting on such issue, we consider those factors and vote on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general principles set forth above. In the case of a proxy issue for which there is no stated position or list of factors that we consider in voting on such issue, we vote on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general principles set forth above. We may utilize an external service provider to provide us with information and/or a recommendation with regard to proxy votes but we are not required to follow any such recommendations. The use of an external service provider does not relieve us of our responsibility for the proxy vote.

For routine matters, we usually vote according to our policy or the external service provider’s recommendation, although we are not obligated to do so and each individual portfolio management team may vote contrary to our policy or the recommendation of the external service provider. If a matter is non-routine, e.g., management’s recommendation is different than that of the external service provider and ClearBridge is a significant holder or it is a significant holding for ClearBridge, the issues will be highlighted to the appropriate investment teams. Different investment teams may vote differently on the same issue, depending upon their assessment of clients’ best interests.

ClearBridge’s policies are reviewed annually and its proxy voting process is overseen and coordinated by its Proxy Committee.

IV.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

In furtherance of ClearBridge’s goal to vote proxies in the best interests of clients, ClearBridge follows procedures designed to identify and address material conflicts that may arise between ClearBridge’s interests and those of its clients before voting proxies on behalf of such clients.

A.

Procedures for Identifying Conflicts of Interest

ClearBridge relies on the following to seek to identify conflicts of interest with respect to proxy voting:

1.

ClearBridge’s employees are periodically reminded of their obligation (i) to be aware of the potential for conflicts of interest on the part of ClearBridge with respect to voting proxies on behalf of client accounts both as a result of their personal relationships or personal or business relationships relating to another Franklin Resources, Inc. (“Franklin”) business unit, and (ii) to bring conflicts of interest of which they become aware to the attention of ClearBridge’s Chief Compliance Officer.

2.

ClearBridge’s finance area maintains and provides to ClearBridge Compliance and proxy voting personnel an up- to-date list of all client relationships that have historically accounted for or are projected to account for greater than 1% of ClearBridge’s net revenues.

3.

As a general matter, ClearBridge takes the position that relationships between a non-ClearBridge Franklin unit and an issuer (e.g., investment management relationship between an issuer and a non-ClearBridge Franklin affiliate) do not present a conflict of interest for ClearBridge in voting proxies with respect to such issuer because ClearBridge operates as an independent business unit from other Franklin business units and because of the existence of informational barriers between ClearBridge and certain other Franklin business units. As noted above, ClearBridge employees are under an obligation to bring such conflicts of interest, including conflicts of interest which may arise because of an attempt by another Franklin business unit or non-ClearBridge Franklin officer or employee to influence proxy voting by ClearBridge to the attention of ClearBridge Compliance.

4.

A list of issuers with respect to which ClearBridge has a potential conflict of interest in voting proxies on behalf of client accounts will be maintained by ClearBridge proxy voting personnel. ClearBridge will not vote proxies relating to such issuers until it has been determined that the conflict of interest is not material or a method for resolving the conflict of interest has been agreed upon and implemented, as described in Section IV below.

B.

Procedures for Assessing Materiality of Conflicts of Interest and for Addressing Material Conflicts of Interest

1.

ClearBridge maintains a Proxy Committee which, among other things, reviews and addresses conflicts of interest brought to its attention. The Proxy Committee is comprised of such ClearBridge personnel (and others, at ClearBridge’s request), as are designated from time to time. The current members of the Proxy Committee are set forth in the Proxy Committee’s Terms of Reference.

2.

All conflicts of interest identified pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section IV. A. must be brought to the attention of the Proxy Committee for resolution. A proxy issue that will be voted in accordance with a stated ClearBridge position on such issue or in accordance with the recommendation of an independent third party generally is not brought to the attention of the Proxy Committee for a conflict of interest review because ClearBridge’s position is that any conflict of interest issues are resolved by voting in accordance with a pre-determined policy or in accordance with the recommendation of an independent third party.

3.

The Proxy Committee will determine whether a conflict of interest is material. A conflict of interest will be considered material to the extent that it is determined that such conflict is likely to influence, or appear to influence, ClearBridge’s decision-making in voting the proxy. All materiality determinations will be based on an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances. A written record of all materiality determinations made by the Proxy Committee will be maintained.

4.

If it is determined by the Proxy Committee that a conflict of interest is not material, ClearBridge may vote proxies notwithstanding the existence of the conflict.

5.

If it is determined by the Proxy Committee that a conflict of interest is material, the Proxy Committee will determine an appropriate method to resolve such conflict of interest before the proxy affected by the conflict of interest is voted. Such determination shall be based on the particular facts and circumstances, including the importance of the proxy issue, the nature of the conflict of interest, etc. Such methods may include:

•

disclosing the conflict to clients and obtaining their consent before voting;

•

suggesting to clients that they engage another party to vote the proxy on their behalf;

•

in the case of a conflict of interest resulting from a particular employee’s personal relationships, removing such employee from the decision-making process with respect to such proxy vote; or

•

such other method as is deemed appropriate given the particular facts and circumstances, including the importance of the proxy issue, the nature of the conflict of interest, etc.*

A written record of the method used to resolve a material conflict of interest shall be maintained.

C.

Third Party Proxy Voting Firm - Conflicts of Interest

With respect to a third-party proxy voting firm described herein, the Proxy Committee will periodically review and assess such firm’s policies, procedures and practices with respect to the disclosure and handling of conflicts of interest.

V.

VOTING POLICY

These are policy guidelines that can always be superseded, subject to the duty to act solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of accounts, by the investment management professionals responsible for the account holding the shares being voted. There may be occasions when different investment teams vote differently on the same issue. In addition, in the case of Taft-Hartley clients, ClearBridge will comply with a client direction to vote proxies in accordance with Institutional Shareholder Services’ (ISS) PVS Proxy Voting Guidelines, which ISS represents to be fully consistent with AFL-CIO guidelines.

A.

Election of Directors

1.

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections.

a.

We withhold our vote from a director nominee who:

•

attended less than 75 percent of the company’s board and committee meetings without a valid excuse (illness, service to the nation/local government, work on behalf of the company);

•

received more than 50 percent withheld votes of the shares cast at the previous board election, and the company has failed to address the issue as to why;

•

is a member of the company’s audit committee, when excessive non-audit fees were paid to the auditor, or there are chronic control issues and an absence of established effective control mechanisms;

•

is a member of the company’s compensation committee if the compensation committee ignore a say on pay proposal that a majority of shareholders opposed;

•

is a member of the company’s nominating committee and there is no gender diversity on the board (or those currently proposed for election to the board do not meet that criterion).

•

is a member of the company’s nominating committee and there is no racial/ethnic diversity on the board (or those currently proposed for election to the board do not meet that criterion).1

^* Especially in the case of an apparent, as opposed to actual, conflict of interest, the Proxy Committee may resolve such conflict of interest by satisfying itself that ClearBridge’s proposed vote on a proxy issue is in the best interest of client accounts and is not being influenced by the conflict of interest.

^1. This position only applies to Anglo markets which is defined as US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

b.

We vote on a case-by-case basis in the following circumstances:

i.

Significant Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emitters – We will generally vote against the Chair of the board and the Chair of the responsible committee for companies that are significant GHG emitters in cases where the company is not taking the minimum steps needed to understand, assess, and mitigate risks related to climate change to the company and the larger economy. Minimum steps include detailed disclosure of climate-related risks, such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD); and, at this time, “appropriate” GHG emissions reductions targets (i.e., short-term and medium-term GHG reduction targets or net zero by 2050 GHG reduction targets).

ii.

Lack of Progress Towards Addressing Emissions – We may decide to vote against the Chair of the board and relevant Directors in connection with our net zero commitment if we determine that insufficient progress has been made towards addressing emissions. Such a vote against the Chair and Directors would be one of the final steps in our net zero escalation policy. A vote against the Chair and Directors would only be considered after extensive direct engagement with the company and where there is insufficient progress being made via engagement after several years. This vote would be placed on an ad hoc basis and only upon our specific request.

c.

We vote for all other director nominees.

2.

Chairman and CEO is the Same Person.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on shareholder proposals that would require the positions of the Chairman and CEO to be held by different persons. We would generally vote FOR such a proposal unless there are compelling reasons to vote against the proposal, including:

•

Designation of a lead director

•

Majority of independent directors (supermajority)

•

All independent key committees

•

Size of the company (based on market capitalization)

•

Established governance guidelines

•

Company performance

3.

Majority of Independent Directors

a.

We vote for shareholder proposals that request that the board be comprised of a majority of independent directors. Generally that would require that the director have no connection to the company other than the board seat. In determining whether an independent director is truly independent (e.g. when voting on a slate of director candidates), we consider certain factors including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: whether the director or his/her company provided professional services to the company or its affiliates either currently or in the past year; whether the director has any transactional relationship with the company; whether the director is a significant customer or supplier of the company; whether the director is employed by a foundation or university that received significant grants or endowments from the company or its affiliates; and whether there are interlocking directorships.

b.

We vote for shareholder proposals that request that the board audit, compensation and/or nominating committees include independent directors exclusively.

4.

Stock Ownership Requirements

We vote against shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director, or to remain on the board.

5.

Term of Office

We vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of independent directors.

6.

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

a.

Subject to subparagraphs 2, 3, and 4 below, we vote for proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection.

b.

We vote for proposals to limit and against proposals to eliminate entirely director and officer liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care.

c.

We vote against indemnification proposals that would expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to acts, such as negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations than mere carelessness.

d.

We vote for only those proposals that provide such expanded coverage noted in subparagraph 3 above in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if: (1) the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company, and (2) if only the director’s legal expenses would be covered.

7.

Director Qualifications

a.

We vote case-by-case on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications. Considerations include how reasonable the criteria are and to what degree they may preclude dissident nominees from joining the board.

b.

We vote against shareholder proposals requiring two candidates per board seat.

B.

Proxy Contests

1.

Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

We vote on a case-by-case basis in contested elections of directors. Considerations include: chronology of events leading up to the proxy contest; qualifications of director nominees (incumbents and dissidents); for incumbents, whether the board is comprised of a majority of outside directors; whether key committees (i.e.: nominating, audit, compensation) comprise solely of independent outsiders; discussion with the respective portfolio manager(s).

2.

Reimburse Proxy Solicitation Expenses

We vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to provide full reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest. Considerations include: identity of persons who will pay solicitation expenses; cost of solicitation; percentage that will be paid to proxy solicitation firms.

C.

Auditors

1.

Ratifying Auditors

We vote for proposals to ratify auditors, unless an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; or there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position or there is reason to believe the independent auditor has not followed the highest level of ethical conduct. Specifically, we will vote to ratify auditors if the auditors only provide the company audit services and such other audit-related and non-audit services the provision of which will not cause such auditors to lose their independence under applicable laws, rules and regulations.

2.

Financial Statements and Director and Auditor Reports

We generally vote for management proposals seeking approval of financial accounts and reports and the discharge of management and supervisory board members, unless there is concern about the past actions of the company’s auditors or directors.

3.

Remuneration of Auditors

We vote for proposals to authorize the board or an audit committee of the board to determine the remuneration of auditors, unless there is evidence of excessive compensation relative to the size and nature of the company.

4.

Indemnification of Auditors

We vote against proposals to indemnify auditors.

D.

Proxy Contest Defenses

1.

Board Structure: Staggered vs. Annual Elections

a.

We vote against proposals to classify the board.

b.

We vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

2.

Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors

a.

We vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

b.

We vote for proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause.

c.

We vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

d.

We vote for proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

3.

Cumulative Voting

a.

If plurality voting is in place for uncontested director elections, we vote for proposals to permit or restore cumulative voting.

b.

If majority voting is in place for uncontested director elections, we vote against cumulative voting.

c.

If plurality voting is in place for uncontested director elections, and proposals to adopt both cumulative voting and majority voting are on the same slate, we vote for majority voting and against cumulative voting.

4.

Majority Voting

We vote for non-binding and/or binding resolutions requesting that the board amend a company’s by-laws to stipulate that directors need to be elected with an affirmative majority of the votes cast, provided that it does not conflict with the state law where the company is incorporated. In addition, all resolutions need to provide for a carve-out for a plurality vote standard when there are more nominees than board seats (i.e. contested election). In addition, ClearBridge strongly encourages companies to adopt a post-election director resignation policy setting guidelines for the company to follow to promptly address situations involving holdover directors.

5.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

a.

We vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings.

b.

We vote for proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings, taking into account a minimum ownership threshold of 10 percent (and investor ownership structure, depending on bylaws).

6.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

a.

We vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent.

b.

We vote for proposals to allow or make easier shareholder action by written consent.

7.

Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board

a.

We vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board.

b.

We vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

8.

Advance Notice Proposals

We vote on advance notice proposals on a case-by-case basis, giving support to those proposals which allow shareholders to submit proposals as close to the meeting date as reasonably possible and within the broadest window possible.

9.

Amendment of By-Laws

a.

We vote against proposals giving the board exclusive authority to amend the by-laws.

b.

We vote for proposals giving the board the ability to amend the by-laws in addition to shareholders.

10.

Article Amendments (not otherwise covered by ClearBridge Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures).

We review on a case-by-case basis all proposals seeking amendments to the articles of association.

We vote for article amendments if:

•

shareholder rights are protected;

•

there is negligible or positive impact on shareholder value;

•

management provides adequate reasons for the amendments; and

•

the company is required to do so by law (if applicable).

E.

Tender Offer Defenses

1.

Poison Pills

a.

We vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.

b.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on shareholder proposals to redeem a company’s poison pill. Considerations include: when the plan was originally adopted; financial condition of the company; terms of the poison pill.

c.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on management proposals to ratify a poison pill. Considerations include: sunset provision - poison pill is submitted to shareholders for ratification or rejection every 2 to 3 years; shareholder redemption feature -10% of the shares may call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the rights plan.

2.

Fair Price Provisions

a.

We vote for fair price proposals, as long as the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more than a majority of disinterested shares.

b.

We vote for shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.

3.

Greenmail

a.

We vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

b.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

4.

Unequal Voting Rights

a.

We vote against dual class exchange offers.

b.

We vote against dual class re-capitalization.

5.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend the Charter or Bylaws

a.

We vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments.

b.

We vote for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for charter and bylaw amendments.

6.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Approve Mergers

a.

We vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve mergers and other significant business combinations.

b.

We vote for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for mergers and other significant business combinations.

7.

White Knight/Squire Placements

We vote for shareholder proposals to require approval of blank check preferred stock issues.

F.

Miscellaneous Governance Provisions

1.

Confidential Voting

a.

We vote for shareholder proposals that request corporations to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: in the case of a contested election, management is permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived.

b.

We vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting subject to the proviso for contested elections set forth in sub-paragraph A.1. above.

2.

Equal Access

We vote for shareholder proposals that would allow significant company shareholders equal access to management’s proxy material in order to evaluate and propose voting recommendations on proxy proposals and director nominees, and in order to nominate their own candidates to the board.

3.

Bundled Proposals

We vote on a case-by-case basis on bundled or “conditioned” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, we examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests and therefore not in the best interests of the beneficial owners of accounts, we vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, we support such proposals.

4.

Shareholder Advisory Committees

We vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee. Considerations include: rationale and cost to the firm to form such a committee. We generally vote against such proposals if the board and key nominating committees are comprised solely of independent/outside directors.

5.

Other Business

We vote for proposals that seek to bring forth other business matters.

6.

Adjourn Meeting

We vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals that seek to adjourn a shareholder meeting in order to solicit additional votes.

7.

Lack of Information

We vote against proposals if a company fails to provide shareholders with adequate information upon which to base their voting decision.

G.

Capital Structure

1.

Common Stock Authorization

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issue, except as described in paragraph 2 below.

b.

Subject to paragraph 3, below we vote for the approval requesting increases in authorized shares if the company meets certain criteria:

•

Company has already issued a certain percentage (i.e. greater than 50%) of the company’s allotment.

•

The proposed increase is reasonable (i.e. less than 150% of current inventory) based on an analysis of the company’s historical stock management or future growth outlook of the company.

c.

We vote on a case-by-case basis, based on the input of affected portfolio managers, if holding is greater than 1% of an account.

2.

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

We vote on a case-by-case basis on management proposals to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the split does not result in an increase of authorized but unissued shares of more than 100% after giving effect to the shares needed for the split.

3.

Reverse Stock Splits

We vote for management proposals to implement a reverse stock split, provided that the reverse split does not result in an increase of authorized but unissued shares of more than 100% after giving effect to the shares needed for the reverse split.

4.

Blank Check Preferred Stock

a.

We vote against proposals to create, authorize or increase the number of shares with regard to blank check preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution and other rights.

b.

We vote for proposals to create “declawed” blank check preferred stock (stock that cannot be used as a takeover defense).

c.

We vote for proposals to authorize 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 appear reasonable.

d.

We vote for proposals requiring a shareholder vote for blank check preferred stock issues.

5.

Adjust Par Value of Common Stock

We vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.

6.

Preemptive Rights

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis for shareholder proposals seeking to establish them and consider the following factors:

•

Size of the Company.

•

Characteristics of the size of the holding (holder owning more than 1% of the outstanding shares).

•

Percentage of the rights offering (rule of thumb less than 5%).

b.

We vote on a case-by-case basis for shareholder proposals seeking the elimination of pre-emptive rights.

7.

Debt Restructuring

We vote on a case-by-case basis for proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt-restructuring plan. Generally, we approve proposals that facilitate debt restructuring.

8.

Share Repurchase Programs

We vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

9.

Dual-Class Stock

We vote for proposals to eliminate dual-class structures, unless a company has a stated policy that stipulates that the dual class structure will be eliminated in a period not to exceed 5 years from its initial public offering.

10.

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

We vote against proposals that increase authorized common stock for the explicit purpose of implementing a shareholder rights plan (poison pill).

11.

Debt Issuance Requests

When evaluating a debt issuance request, the issuing company’s present financial situation is examined. The main factor for analysis is the company’s current debt-to-equity ratio, or gearing level. A high gearing level may incline markets and financial analysts to downgrade the company’s bond rating, increasing its investment risk factor in the process. A gearing level up to 100 percent is considered acceptable.

We vote for debt issuances for companies when the gearing level is between zero and 100 percent.

We view on a case-by-case basis proposals where the issuance of debt will result in the gearing level being greater than 100 percent. Any proposed debt issuance is compared to industry and market standards.

12.

Financing Plans

We generally vote for the adopting of financing plans if we believe they are in the best economic interests of shareholders.

H.

Executive and Director Compensation

In general, we vote for executive and director compensation plans, with the view that viable compensation programs reward the creation of stockholder wealth by having high payout sensitivity to increases in shareholder value. Certain factors, however, such as repricing underwater stock options without shareholder approval, would cause us to vote against a plan. Additionally, in some cases we would vote against a plan deemed unnecessary.

1.

OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals

a.

Amendments that Place a Cap on Annual Grant or Amend Administrative Features

We vote for plans that simply amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

b.

Amendments to Added Performance-Based Goals

We vote for amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

c.

Amendments to Increase Shares and Retain Tax Deductions Under OBRA

We vote for amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) the Internal Revenue Code.

d.

Approval of Cash or Cash-and-Stock Bonus Plans

We vote for cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

2.

Expensing of Options

We vote for proposals to expense stock options on financial statements.

3.

Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on all shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information. Considerations include: cost and form of disclosure. We vote for such proposals if additional disclosure is relevant to shareholder’s needs and would not put the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its industry.

b.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on all other shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay.

4.

Reports to Assess the Feasibility of Including Sustainability as a Performance Metric

We vote in favor of non-binding proposals for reports on the feasibility of including sustainability as a performance metric for senior executive compensation.

We have a policy of voting to reasonably limit the level of options and other equity-based compensation arrangements available to management to reasonably limit shareholder dilution and management compensation. For options and equity-based compensation arrangements,

we vote FOR proposals or amendments that would result in the available awards being less than 10% of fully diluted outstanding shares (i.e. if the combined total of shares, common share equivalents and options available to be awarded under all current and proposed compensation plans is less than 10% of fully diluted shares). In the event the available awards exceed the 10% threshold, we would also consider the % relative to the common practice of its specific industry (e.g. technology firms). Other considerations would include, without limitation, the following:

•

Compensation committee comprised of independent outside directors

•

Maximum award limits

•

Repricing without shareholder approval prohibited

•

3-year average burn rate for company

•

Plan administrator has authority to accelerate the vesting of awards

•

Shares under the plan subject to performance criteria

5.

Golden Parachutes

a.

We vote for shareholder proposals to have golden parachutes submitted for shareholder ratification.

b.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on all proposals to ratify or cancel golden parachutes. Considerations include: the amount should not exceed 3 times average base salary plus guaranteed benefits; golden parachute should be less attractive than an ongoing employment opportunity with the firm.

6.

Golden Coffins

a.

We vote for shareholder proposals that request a company not to make any death benefit payments to senior executives’ estates or beneficiaries, or pay premiums in respect to any life insurance policy covering a senior executive’s life (“golden coffin”). We carve out benefits provided under a plan, policy or arrangement applicable to a broader group of employees, such as offering group universal life insurance.

b.

We vote for shareholder proposals that request shareholder approval of survivor benefits for future agreements that, following the death of a senior executive, would obligate the company to make payments or awards not earned.

7.

Anti-Tax Gross-up Policy

a.

We vote for proposals that ask a company to adopt a policy whereby it will not make, or promise to make, any tax gross-up payment to its senior executives, except for tax gross-ups provided pursuant to a plan, policy, or arrangement applicable to management employees of the company generally, such as relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy; we also vote for proposals that ask management to put gross-up payments to a shareholder vote.

b.

We vote against proposals where a company will make, or promise to make, any tax gross-up payment to its senior executives without a shareholder vote, except for tax gross-ups provided pursuant to a plan, policy, or arrangement applicable to management employees of the company generally, such as relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy.

8.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

We vote for proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, except in cases when the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is “excessive” (i.e., generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares).

9.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

a.

We vote for qualified plans where all of the following apply:

•

The purchase price is at least 85 percent of fair market value

•

The offering period is 27 months or less

•

The number of shares allocated to the plan is five percent or less of outstanding shares

If the above do not apply, we vote on a case-by-case basis.

b.

We vote for non-qualified plans where all of the following apply:

•

All employees of the company are eligible to participate (excluding 5 percent or more beneficial owners)

•

There are limits on employee contribution (ex: fixed dollar amount)

•

There is a company matching contribution with a maximum of 25 percent of an employee’s contribution

•

There is no discount on the stock price on purchase date (since there is a company match)

If the above do not apply, we vote against the non-qualified employee stock purchase plan.

10.

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

We vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

11.

Stock Compensation Plans

a.

We vote for stock compensation plans which provide a dollar-for-dollar cash for stock exchange.

b.

We vote on a case-by-case basis for stock compensation plans which do not provide a dollar-for-dollar cash for stock exchange using a quantitative model.

12.

Directors Retirement Plans

a.

We vote against retirement plans for non-employee directors.

b.

We vote for shareholder proposals to eliminate retirement plans for non-employee directors.

13.

Management Proposals to Reprice Options

We vote against management proposals seeking approval to reprice options.

14.

Shareholder Proposals Regarding Executive and Director Pay

a.

We vote against shareholder proposals seeking to set absolute levels on compensation or otherwise dictate the amount or form of compensation.

b.

We vote against shareholder proposals requiring director fees be paid in stock only.

c.

We vote against shareholder proposals to eliminate vesting of options and restricted stock on change of control.

d.

We vote for shareholder proposals to put option repricing to a shareholder vote.

e.

We vote for shareholder proposals that call for a non-binding advisory vote on executive pay (“say-on-pay”). Company boards would adopt a policy giving shareholders the opportunity at each annual meeting to vote on an advisory resolution to ratify the compensation of the named executive officers set forth in the proxy statement’s summary compensation table.

f.

We vote “annual” for the frequency of say-on-pay proposals rather than once every two or three years.

g.

We vote on a case-by-case basis for all other shareholder proposals regarding executive and director pay, taking into account company performance, pay level versus peers, pay level versus industry, and long term corporate outlook.

15.

Management Proposals on Executive Compensation

For non-binding advisory votes on executive officer compensation, when management and the external service provider agree, we vote for the proposal. When management and the external service provider disagree, the proposal becomes a refer item. In the case of a Refer item, the factors under consideration will include the following:

•

Company performance over the last 1, 3, and 5-year periods on a total shareholder return basis

•

Performance metrics for short- and long-term incentive programs

•

CEO pay relative to company performance (is there a misalignment)

•

Tax gross-ups to senior executives

•

Change-in-control arrangements

•

Presence of a clawback provision, ownership guidelines, or stock holding requirements for senior executives

16.

Stock Retention / Holding Period of Equity Awards

We vote on a case-by-case basis on shareholder proposals asking companies to adopt policies requiring senior executives to retain all or a significant (>50 percent) portion of their shares acquired through equity compensation plans, either:

•

While employed and/or for one to two years following the termination of their employment; or

•

For a substantial period following the lapse of all other vesting requirements for the award, with ratable release of a portion of the shares annually during the lock-up period

The following factors will be taken into consideration:

•

Whether the company has any holding period, retention ratio, or named executive officer ownership requirements currently in place

•

Actual stock ownership of the company’s named executive officers

•

Policies aimed at mitigating risk taking by senior executives

•

Pay practices at the company that we deem problematic

I.

State/Country of Incorporation

1.

Voting on State Takeover Statutes

a.

We vote for proposals to opt out of state freeze-out provisions.

b.

We vote for proposals to opt out of state disgorgement provisions.

2.

Voting on Re-incorporation Proposals

We vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to change a company’s state or country of incorporation. Considerations include: reasons for re-incorporation (i.e. financial, restructuring, etc); advantages/benefits for change (i.e. lower taxes); compare the differences in state/country laws governing the corporation.

3.

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

a.

We vote against proposals to amend the charter to include control share acquisition provisions.

b.

We vote for proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes unless doing so would enable the completion of a takeover that would be detrimental to shareholders.

c.

We vote for proposals to restore voting rights to the control shares.

d.

We vote for proposals to opt out of control share cashout statutes.

J.

Mergers and Corporate Restructuring

1.

Mergers and Acquisitions

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on mergers and acquisitions. Considerations include: benefits/advantages of the combined companies (i.e. economies of scale, operating synergies, increase in market power/share, etc.); offer price (premium or discount); change in the capital structure; impact on shareholder rights.

2.

Corporate Restructuring

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on corporate restructuring proposals involving minority squeeze outs and leveraged buyouts. Considerations include: offer price, other alternatives/offers considered and review of fairness opinions.

3.

Spin-offs

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on spin-offs. Considerations include the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

4.

Asset Sales

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on asset sales. Considerations include the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of diseconomies.

5.

Liquidations

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on liquidations after reviewing management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives, appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

6.

Appraisal Rights

a.

We vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.

7.

Changing Corporate Name

a.

We vote for proposals to change the “corporate name”, unless the proposed name change bears a negative connotation.

8.

Conversion of Securities

a.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals regarding conversion of securities. Considerations include the dilution to existing shareholders, the conversion price relative to market value, financial issues, control issues, termination penalties, and conflicts of interest.

9.

Stakeholder Provisions

a.

We vote against proposals that ask the board to consider non-shareholder constituencies or other non-financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.

K.

Social and Environmental Issues

When considering environmental and social (E&S) proposals, we have an obligation to vote proxies in the best interest of our clients, considering both shareholder value as well as societal impact.

1.

Sustainability Reporting

a.

We vote for proposals seeking greater disclosure on the company’s environmental, social & governance policies and practices;

b.

We vote for proposals that would require companies whose annual revenues are at least $5 billion to prepare a sustainability report. All others will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

2.

Diversity & Equality

a.

We vote for proposals supporting nomination of most qualified candidates, inclusive of a diverse pool of women and people of color, to the Board of Directors and senior management levels;

b.

We vote for proposals requesting comprehensive disclosure on board diversity;

c.

We vote for proposals requesting comprehensive disclosure on employee diversity;

d.

We vote for proposals requesting comprehensive reports on gender and racial pay disparity;

e.

We vote for proposals seeking to amend a company’s EEO statement or diversity policies to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

3.

Climate Risk Disclosure

a.

We vote for climate proposals that are not overly prescriptive seeking more disclosure on financial, physical or regulatory risks related to climate change and/or how the company measures and manages such risks;

b.

We vote for climate proposals that are not overly prescriptive requesting a report/disclosure of goals on GHG emissions reduction targets from company operations and/or products;

4.

Case-by-case E&S proposals (examples)

a.

Animal welfare policies;

b.

Human rights and related company policies;

c.

Talent acquisition and retention policies; we generally support proposals that enable a company to recruit, support and retain talent in a globally competitive world;

d.

Operations in high-risk or sensitive areas;

e.

Product integrity and marketing; and

f.

Proposals asking a company to conduct an independent racial equity and/or civil rights audit, which we generally support but vote on a case-by-case basis given the variability in the language.

L.

Miscellaneous

1.

Charitable Contributions

We vote against proposals to eliminate, direct or otherwise restrict charitable contributions.

2.

Political Contributions

We will vote in favor of non-binding proposals for reports on corporate lobbying and political contributions.

In general, we vote on a case-by-case basis on other shareholder proposals pertaining to political contributions. In determining our vote on political contribution proposals we consider, among other things, the following:

•

Does the company have a political contributions policy publicly available

•

How extensive is the disclosure on these documents

•

What oversight mechanisms the company has in place for approving/reviewing political contributions and expenditures

•

Does the company provide information on its trade association expenditures

•

Total amount of political expenditure by the company in recent history

3.

Operational Items

a.

We vote against proposals to provide management with the authority to adjourn an annual or special meeting absent compelling reasons to support the proposal.

b.

We vote against proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding unless there are compelling reasons to support the proposal.

c.

We vote for by-law or charter changes that are of a housekeeping nature (updates or corrections).

d.

We vote for management proposals to change the date/time/location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable.

e.

We vote against shareholder proposals to change the date/time/location of the annual meeting unless the current scheduling or location is unreasonable.

f.

We vote against proposals to approve other business when it appears as voting item.

4.

Routine Agenda Items

In some markets, shareholders are routinely asked to approve:

•

the opening of the shareholder meeting

•

that the meeting has been convened under local regulatory requirements

•

the presence of a quorum

•

the agenda for the shareholder meeting

•

the election of the chair of the meeting

•

regulatory filings

•

the allowance of questions

•

the publication of minutes

•

the closing of the shareholder meeting

We generally vote for these and similar routine management proposals.

5.

Allocation of Income and Dividends

We generally vote for management proposals concerning allocation of income and the distribution of dividends, unless the amount of the distribution is consistently and unusually small or large.

6.

Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternatives

a.

We vote for most stock (scrip) dividend proposals.

b.

We vote against proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.

ClearBridge has determined that registered investment companies, particularly closed end investment companies, raise special policy issues making specific voting guidelines frequently inapplicable. To the extent that ClearBridge has proxy voting authority with respect to shares of registered investment companies, ClearBridge shall vote such shares in the best interest of client accounts and subject to the general fiduciary principles set forth herein without regard to the specific voting guidelines set forth in Section V. A. through L.

The voting policy guidelines set forth herein will be reviewed annually and may be changed by ClearBridge in its sole discretion.

VI.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

In certain situations, ClearBridge may determine not to vote proxies on behalf of a client because ClearBridge believes that the expected benefit to the client of voting shares is outweighed by countervailing considerations. Examples of situations in which ClearBridge may determine not to vote proxies on behalf of a client include:

A.

Share Blocking

Proxy voting in certain countries requires “share blocking.” This means that shareholders wishing to vote their proxies must deposit their shares shortly before the date of the meeting (e.g. one week) with a designated depositary. During the blocking period, shares that will be voted at the meeting cannot be sold until the meeting has taken place and the shares have been returned to client accounts by the designated depositary. In deciding whether to vote shares subject to share blocking, ClearBridge will consider and weigh, based on the particular facts and circumstances, the expected benefit to clients of voting in relation to the detriment to clients of not being able to sell such shares during the applicable period.

B.

Securities on Loan

Certain clients of ClearBridge, such as an institutional client or a mutual fund for which ClearBridge acts as a sub-adviser, may engage in securities lending with respect to the securities in their accounts. ClearBridge typically does not direct or oversee such securities lending activities. To the extent feasible and practical under the circumstances, ClearBridge will request that the client recall shares that are on loan so that such shares can be voted if ClearBridge believes that the expected benefit to the client of voting such shares outweighs the detriment to the client of recalling such shares (e.g., foregone income). The ability to timely recall shares for proxy voting purposes typically is not entirely within the control of ClearBridge and requires the cooperation of the client and its other service providers. Under certain circumstances, the recall of shares in time for such shares to be voted may not be possible due to applicable proxy voting record dates and administrative considerations.

VII.

DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING

ClearBridge employees may not disclose to others outside of ClearBridge (including employees of other Franklin business units) how ClearBridge intends to vote a proxy absent prior approval from ClearBridge’s Chief Compliance Officer, except that a ClearBridge investment professional may disclose to a third party (other than an employee of another Franklin business unit) how s/he intends to vote without obtaining prior approval from ClearBridge’s Chief Compliance Officer if (1) the disclosure is intended to facilitate a discussion of publicly available information by ClearBridge personnel with a representative of a company whose securities are the subject of the proxy, (2) the company’s market capitalization exceeds $1 billion and (3) ClearBridge has voting power with respect to less than 5% of the outstanding common stock of the company.

If a ClearBridge employee receives a request to disclose ClearBridge’s proxy voting intentions to, or is otherwise contacted by, another person outside of ClearBridge (including an employee of another Franklin business unit) in connection with an upcoming proxy voting matter, he/she should immediately notify ClearBridge’s Chief Compliance Officer.

If a portfolio manager wants to take a public stance with regards to a proxy, s/he must consult with ClearBridge’s Chief Compliance Officer before making or issuing a public statement.

VIII.

RECORDKEEPING AND OVERSIGHT

ClearBridge shall maintain the following records relating to proxy voting:

•

a copy of these policies and procedures;

•

a copy of each proxy form (as voted);

•

a copy of each proxy solicitation (including proxy statements) and related materials with regard to each vote;

•

documentation relating to the identification and resolution of conflicts of interest;

•

any documents created by ClearBridge that were material to a proxy voting decision or that memorialized the basis for that decision; and

•

a copy of each written client request for information on how ClearBridge voted proxies on behalf of the client, and a copy of any written response by ClearBridge to any (written or oral) client request for information on how ClearBridge voted proxies on behalf of the requesting client.

Such records shall be maintained and preserved in an easily accessible place for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, the first two years in an appropriate office of the ClearBridge adviser.

To the extent that ClearBridge is authorized to vote proxies for a United States Registered Investment Company, ClearBridge shall maintain such records as are necessary to allow such fund to comply with its recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure obligations under applicable laws, rules and regulations.

In lieu of keeping copies of proxy statements, ClearBridge may rely on proxy statements filed on the EDGAR system as well as on third party records of proxy statements and votes cast if the third party provides an undertaking to provide the documents promptly upon request.

ITEM 13.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

 

(a)(1):

As of the date of filing this report:

 

NAME AND ADDRESS		LENGTH OF TIME SERVED		PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION(S) DURING PAST 5 YEARS
Peter Vanderlee, CFA Clearbridge 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018		Since 2011		Co-portfolio manager of the fund; Managing Director and Portfolio Manager with ClearBridge Advisors. Mr. Vanderlee has 24 years of investment industry experience.
Patrick McElroy Clearbridge 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018		Since 2023		Co-portfolio manager of the fund; Mr. McElroy is a Director and a Portfolio Manager of ClearBridge. Mr. McElroy joined the subadviser in 2007 and was previously a Convertible Securities Research Analyst for Palisade Capital Management, a Convertible Securities and Equities Research Analyst at Jefferies & Co., a Research Associate for Fixed Income at Standard & Poor’s and prior to that, worked in Fixed Income Division Sales at Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities. He has 32 years of investment industry experience.

 

(a)(2): DATA TO BE PROVIDED BY FINANCIAL CONTROL

 

The following tables set forth certain additional information with respect to the fund’s portfolio managers for the fund. Unless noted otherwise, all information is provided as of November 30, 2024.

 

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers

 

The table below identifies the number of accounts (other than the fund) for which the fund’s portfolio managers have day-to-day management responsibilities and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories:

registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. For each category, the number of accounts and total assets in the accounts where fees are based on performance is also indicated.

 

Name of PM	Type of Account	Number of Accounts Managed	Total Assets Managed	Number of Accounts Managed for which Advisory Fee is Performance- Based	Assets Managed for which Advisory Fee is Performance- Based
Peter Vanderlee	Other Registered Investment Companies	7	$10.74 billion	None	None
	Other Pooled Vehicles	5	$1.54 billion	None	None
	Other Accounts	56,912	$22.86 billion	None	None
Patrick McElroy**	Other Registered Investment Companies	2	$760 million	None	None
	Other Pooled Vehicles	3	$1.37 billion	None	None
	Other Accounts	1,538	$590 million	None	None

 

(a)(3): As of November 30, 2024:

 

Portfolio Manager Compensation Structure (ClearBridge)

Potential Conflicts of Interest

In this subsection and the next subsection titled “Portfolio Manager Compensation Structure”, “Subadviser” refers to ClearBridge Investments, LLC.

Potential conflicts of interest may arise when the Fund’s portfolio managers also have day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to one or more other funds or other accounts, as is the case for the Fund’s portfolio managers.

The Subadviser and the Fund have adopted compliance policies and procedures that are designed to address various conflicts of interest that may arise for the Subadviser and the individuals that each employs. For example, the Subadviser seeks to minimize the effects of competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers by assigning portfolio managers to manage funds and accounts that share a similar investment style. The Subadviser has also adopted trade allocation procedures that are designed to facilitate the fair allocation of investment opportunities among multiple funds and accounts. There is no guarantee, however, that the policies and procedures adopted by the Subadviser and the Fund will be able to detect and/or prevent every situation in which an actual or potential conflict may appear. These potential conflicts include:

Allocation of Limited Time and Attention. A portfolio manager who is responsible for managing multiple funds and/or accounts may devote unequal time and attention to the management of those funds and/or accounts. The effects of this potential conflict may be more pronounced where funds and/or accounts overseen by a particular portfolio manager have different investment strategies.

Allocation of Investment Opportunities. If a portfolio manager identifies an investment opportunity that may be suitable for multiple funds and/or accounts, the opportunity may be allocated among these several funds or accounts, which may limit a fund’s ability to take full advantage of the investment opportunity. The Subadviser has adopted policies and procedures to ensure that all accounts, including the Fund, are treated equitably.

Pursuit of Differing Strategies. At times, a portfolio manager may determine that an investment opportunity may be appropriate for only some of the funds and/or accounts for which he or she exercises investment responsibility, or may decide that certain of the funds and/or accounts should take differing positions with respect to a particular security. In these cases, the portfolio manager may place separate transactions for one or more funds or accounts which may affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the detriment or benefit of one or more other funds and/or accounts.

Selection of Broker/Dealers. In addition to executing trades, some broker/dealers provide brokerage and research services (as those terms are defined in Section 28(e) of the 1934 Act), which may result in the payment of higher brokerage fees than might have otherwise been available. These services may be more beneficial to certain funds or accounts than to others. For this reason, the Subadviser has formed a brokerage committee that reviews, among other things, the allocation of brokerage to broker/dealers, best execution and soft dollar usage.

Variation in Compensation. A conflict of interest may arise where the financial or other benefits available to the portfolio manager differ among the funds and/or accounts that he or she manages. If the structure of the manager’s management fee (and the percentage paid to the Subadviser) differs among funds and/or accounts (such as where certain funds or accounts pay higher management fees or performance-based management fees), the portfolio manager might be motivated to help certain funds and/or accounts over others.

The portfolio manager might be motivated to favor funds and/or accounts in which he or she has an interest or in which the manager and/or its affiliates have interests. Similarly, the desire to maintain assets under management or to enhance the portfolio manager’s performance record or to derive other rewards, financial or otherwise, could influence the portfolio manager in affording preferential treatment to those funds and/or accounts that could most significantly benefit the portfolio manager.

Portfolio Manager Compensation Structure

The Subadviser’s portfolio managers participate in a competitive compensation program that is designed to attract and retain outstanding investment professionals and closely align the interests of its investment professionals with those of its clients and overall firm results. The total compensation program includes a significant incentive component that rewards high performance standards, integrity, and collaboration consistent with the firm’s values. Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed and modified each year as appropriate to reflect changes in the market and to ensure the continued alignment with the goals stated above. A portion of annual bonuses is deferred into compensation plans that vest over the course of several years after the grant date. Deferrals are tied to portfolio performance, ClearBridge equity products, and Franklin Resources stock.

The Subadviser’s portfolio managers and other investment professionals receive a combination of base compensation and discretionary compensation, comprising a cash incentive award and deferred incentive plans described below.

Base salary compensation. Base salary is fixed and primarily determined based on market factors and the experience and responsibilities of the investment professional within the firm.

Discretionary compensation. In addition to base compensation managers may receive discretionary compensation.

Discretionary compensation can include:

•

Cash Incentive Award

•

The Subadviser’s Deferred Incentive Plan (CDIP)—a mandatory program that typically defers 15% of discretionary year-end compensation into the Subadviser’s managed products. For portfolio managers, one-third of this deferral tracks the performance of their primary managed product, one-third tracks the performance of a composite portfolio of the firm’s new product and one-third can be elected to track the performance of one or more of the Subadviser’s managed funds. Consequently, portfolio managers can have two-thirds of their CDIP award tracking the performance of their primary managed products. For centralized research analysts, two-thirds of their deferral is elected to track the performance of one of more of Subadviser’s managed funds, while one-third tracks the performance of the new product composite. The Subadviser then makes a company investment in the proprietary managed funds equal to the deferral amounts by fund. This investment is a company asset held on the balance sheet and paid out to the employees in the shares subject to vesting requirements.

•

Franklin Resources Restricted Stock Deferral—a mandatory program that typically defers 5% of discretionary year-end compensation into Franklin Resources restricted stock. The award is paid out to employees in shares subject to vesting requirements.

Several factors are considered by the Subadviser’s Senior Management when determining discretionary compensation for portfolio managers. These include but are not limited to:

•

Investment performance. A portfolio manager’s compensation is linked to the pre-tax investment performance of the fund/accounts managed by the portfolio manager. Investment performance is calculated for 1-, 3-, and 5-year periods measured against the applicable product benchmark (e.g., a securities index and, with respect to a fund, the benchmark set forth in the Fund’s Prospectus) and relative to applicable industry peer groups. The greatest weight is generally placed on 3- and 5-year performance.

•

Appropriate risk positioning that is consistent with the Subadviser’s investment philosophy and the Investment Committee/CIO approach to generation of alpha.

•

Overall firm profitability and performance.

•

Amount and nature of assets managed by the portfolio manager.

•

Contributions for asset retention, gathering and client satisfaction.

•

Contribution to mentoring, coaching and/or supervising.

•

Contribution and communication of investment ideas in the Subadviser’s Investment Committee meetings and on a day to day basis.

•

Market compensation survey research by independent third parties.

 

(a)(4): Portfolio Manager Securities Ownership

 

The table below identifies the dollar range of securities beneficially owned by each portfolio managers as of November 30, 2024.

 

Portfolio Manager(s)		Dollar Range of Portfolio Securities Beneficially Owned
Peter Vanderlee		D
Patrick McElroy		A

 

Dollar Range ownership is as follows:
A: none
B: $1 - $10,000
C: 10,001 - $50,000
D: $50,001 - $100,000
E: $100,001 - $500,000
F: $500,001 - $1 million
G: over $1 million

 

ITEM 14.	PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS
	Not applicable.
ITEM 15.	SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.
	Not applicable.
ITEM 16.	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 period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

ITEM 17.	DISCLOSURE OF SECURITIES LENDING ACTIVITIES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
	Not applicable.
ITEM 18.	RECOVERY OF ERRONEOUSLY AWARDED COMPENSATION.

 

(a)

Not applicable.

 

(b)

Not applicable.

 

ITEM 19.

EXHIBITS.

 

(a) (1) Code of Ethics attached hereto.

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.

 

ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc.
By:	/s/ Jane Trust
	Jane Trust
	Chief Executive Officer
Date:	January 24, 2025

 

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/ Jane Trust
	Jane Trust
	Chief Executive Officer
Date:	January 24, 2025
By:	/s/ Christopher Berarducci
	Christopher Berarducci
	Principal Financial Officer
Date:	January 24, 2025

Code of Ethics for Principal Executives & Senior Financial Officers

 

Procedures	Revised [September 27, 2024]

 

 

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON AFFILIATED FUNDS

 

CODE OF ETHICS FOR PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVES AND

 

SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

 

I.	Covered Officers and Purpose of the Code

 

This code of ethics (the “Code”) applies to the Principal Executive Officers, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer (the “Covered Officers”) of each investment company advised by a Franklin Resources subsidiary and that is registered with the United States Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (collectively, “FT Funds”) for the purpose of promoting:

 

•

Honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical resolution of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships;

 

•

Full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that a registrant files with, or submits to, the SEC and in other public communications made by or on behalf of the FT Funds;

 

•

Compliance with applicable laws and governmental rules and regulations;

 

•

The prompt internal reporting of violations of the Code to an appropriate person or persons identified in the Code; and

 

•

Accountability for adherence to the Code.

 

Each Covered Officer will be expected to adhere to a high standard of business ethics and must be sensitive to situations that may give rise to actual as well as apparent conflicts of interest.

 

* Rule 38a-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) and Rule 206(4)-7 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) (together the “Compliance Rule”) require registered investment companies and registered investment advisers to, among other things, adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the federal securities laws (“Compliance Rule Policies and Procedures”).

II.	Other Policies and Procedures

This Code shall be the sole code of ethics adopted by the Funds for purposes of Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and forms applicable to registered investment companies thereunder.

 

Franklin Resources, Inc. has separately adopted the Code of Ethics and Business Conduct (“Business Conduct”), which is applicable to all officers, directors and employees of Franklin Resources, Inc., including Covered Officers. It summarizes the values, principles and business practices that guide the employee’s business conduct and also provides a set of basic principles to guide officers, directors and employees regarding the minimum ethical requirements expected of them. It supplements the values, principles and business conduct identified in the Code and other existing employee policies.

Additionally, the Franklin Templeton Funds have separately adopted the FTI Personal Investments and Insider Trading Policy governing personal securities trading and other related matters. The Code for Insider Trading provides for separate requirements that apply to the Covered Officers and others, and therefore is not part of this Code.

 

Insofar as other policies or procedures of Franklin Resources, Inc., the Funds, the Funds’ adviser, principal underwriter, or other service providers govern or purport to govern the behavior or activities of the Covered Officers who are subject to this Code, they are superseded by this Code to the extent that they overlap or conflict with the provisions of this Code. Please review these other documents or consult with the Legal Department if have questions regarding the applicability of these policies to you.

III.	Covered Officers Should Handle Ethically Actual and Apparent Conflicts of Interest

Overview. A “conflict of interest” occurs when a Covered Officer’s private interest interferes with the interests of, or his or her service to, the FT Funds. For example, a conflict of interest would arise if a Covered Officer, or a member of his family, receives improper personal benefits as a result of a position with the FT Funds.

 

Certain conflicts of interest arise out of the relationships between Covered Officers and the FT Funds and already are subject to conflict of interest provisions in the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Investment Advisers Act”). For example, Covered Officers may not individually engage in certain transactions (such as the purchase or sale of securities or other property) with the FT Funds because of their status as “affiliated persons” of the FT Funds. The FT Funds’ and the investment advisers’ compliance programs and procedures are designed to prevent, or identify and correct, violations of these provisions. This Code does not, and is not intended to, repeat or replace these programs and procedures, and such conflicts fall outside of the parameters of this Code.

 

Although typically not presenting an opportunity for improper personal benefit, conflicts arise from, or as a result of, the contractual relationship between the FT Funds, the investment advisers and the fund administrator of which the Covered Officers are also officers or employees. As a result, this Code recognizes that the Covered Officers will, in the normal course of their duties (whether formally for the FT Funds, for the adviser, the administrator, or for all three), be involved in establishing policies and implementing decisions that will have different effects on the

adviser, administrator and the FT Funds. The participation of the Covered Officers in such activities is inherent in the contractual relationship between the FT Funds, the adviser, and the administrator and is consistent with the performance by the Covered Officers of their duties as officers of the FT Funds. Thus, if performed in conformity with the provisions of the Investment Company Act and the Investment Advisers Act, such activities will be deemed to have been handled ethically. In addition, it is recognized by the FT Funds’ Boards of Directors (“Boards”) that the Covered Officers may also be officers or employees of one or more other investment companies covered by this or other codes.

 

Other conflicts of interest are covered by the Code, even if such conflicts of interest are not subject to provisions in the Investment Company Act and the Investment Advisers Act. The following list provides examples of conflicts of interest under the Code, but Covered Officers should keep in mind that these examples are not exhaustive. The overarching principle is that the personal interest of a Covered Officer should not be placed improperly before the interest of the FT Funds.

Each Covered Officer must:

•

Not use his or her personal influence or personal relationships improperly to influence investment decisions or financial reporting by the FT Funds whereby the Covered Officer would benefit personally to the detriment of the FT Funds;

 

•

Not cause the FT Funds to take action, or fail to take action, for the individual personal benefit of the Covered Officer rather than the benefit of the FT Funds;

 

•

Not retaliate against any other Covered Officer or any employee of the FT Funds or their affiliated persons for reports of potential violations that are made in good faith;

 

•

Report at least annually the following affiliations or other relationships:1

 

•

all directorships for public companies and all companies that are required to file reports with the SEC;

 

•

any direct or indirect business relationship with any independent directors of the FT Funds;

 

•

any direct or indirect business relationship with any independent public accounting firm (which are not related to the routine issues related to the firm’s service as the Covered Persons accountant); and

 

•

any direct or indirect interest in any transaction with any FT Fund that will benefit the officer (not including benefits derived from the advisory, sub-advisory, distribution or service agreements with affiliates of Franklin Resources).

 

These reports will be reviewed by the Legal Department for compliance with the Code.

There are some conflict of interest situations that should always be approved in writing by Franklin Resources General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel, if material. Examples of these include²:

 

	•	Service as a director on the board of any public or private Company.

•

The receipt of any gifts in excess of $100 from any person, from any corporation or association.

 

¹ Reporting of these affiliations or other relationships shall be made by completing the annual Directors and Officers Questionnaire and returning the questionnaire to Franklin Resources Inc, General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel.

 

² Any activity or relationship that would present a conflict for a Covered Officer may also present a conflict for the Covered Officer if a member of the Covered Officer’s immediate family engages in such an activity or has such a relationship. The Covered Person should also obtain written approval by FT’s General Counsel in such situations.

	•	The receipt of any entertainment from any Company with which the FT Funds has current or prospective business dealings unless such entertainment is business related, reasonable in cost, appropriate as to time and place, and not so frequent as to raise any question of impropriety. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Covered Officers must obtain prior approval from the Franklin Resources General Counsel for any entertainment with a value in excess of $1000.

	•	Any ownership interest in, or any consulting or employment relationship with, any of the FT Fund’s service providers, other than an investment adviser, principal underwriter, administrator or any affiliated person thereof.

	•	A direct or indirect financial interest in commissions, transaction charges or spreads paid by the FT Funds for effecting portfolio transactions or for selling or redeeming shares other than an interest arising from the Covered Officer’s employment, such as compensation or equity ownership.

•

Franklin Resources General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel, or the Chief Compliance Officer, will provide a report to the FT Funds Audit Committee of any approvals granted at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

IV.	Disclosure and Compliance

	•	Each Covered Officer should familiarize himself with the disclosure requirements generally applicable to the FT Funds;

	•	Each Covered Officer should not knowingly misrepresent, or cause others to misrepresent, facts about the FT Funds to others, whether within or outside the FT Funds, including to the FT Funds’ directors and auditors, and to governmental regulators and self-regulatory organizations;

	•	Each Covered Officer should, to the extent appropriate within his or her area of responsibility, consult with other officers and employees of the FT Funds, the FT Fund’s adviser and the administrator with the goal of promoting full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in the reports and documents the FT Funds file with, or submit to, the SEC and in other public communications made by the FT Funds; and

•

It is the responsibility of each Covered Officer to promote compliance with the standards and restrictions imposed by applicable laws, rules and regulations.

 

V.	Reporting and Accountability

Each Covered Officer must:

 

	•	Upon becoming a covered officer affirm in writing to the Board that he or she has received, read, and understands the Code (see Exhibit A);

	•	Annually thereafter affirm to the Board that he has complied with the requirements of the Code; and

•

Notify Franklin Resources’ General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel promptly if he or she knows of any violation of this Code. Failure to do so is itself is a violation of this Code.

Franklin Resources’ General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel are responsible for applying this Code to specific situations in which questions are presented under it and have the authority to interpret this Code in any particular situation.³ However, the Independent Directors of the respective FT Funds will consider any approvals or waivers⁴ sought by any Chief Executive Officers of the Funds.

 

The FT Funds will follow these procedures in investigating and enforcing this Code:

	•	Franklin Resources General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel will take all appropriate action to investigate any potential violations reported to the Legal Department;

	•	If, after such investigation, the General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel believes that no violation has occurred, The General Counsel is not required to take any further action;

	•	Any matter that the General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel believes is a violation will be reported to the Independent Directors of the appropriate FT Fund;

	•	If the Independent Directors concur that a violation has occurred, it will inform and make a recommendation to the Board of the appropriate FT Fund or Funds, which will consider appropriate action, which may include review of, and appropriate modifications to, applicable policies and procedures; notification to appropriate personnel of the investment adviser or its board; or a recommendation to dismiss the Covered Officer;

	•	The Independent Directors will be responsible for granting waivers, as appropriate; and

•

Any changes to or waivers of this Code will, to the extent required, are disclosed as provided by SEC rules.5

VI.	Other Policies and Procedures

This Code shall be the sole code of ethics adopted by the FT Funds for purposes of Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and forms applicable to registered investment companies thereunder. Insofar as other policies or procedures of the FT Funds, the FT Funds’ advisers, principal underwriter, or other service providers govern or purport to govern the behavior or activities of the Covered Officers who are subject to this Code, they are superseded by this Code to the extent that they overlap or conflict with the provisions of this Code. The FTI Personal Investments and Insider Trading Policy, adopted by the FT Funds, FT investment advisers and FT Fund’s principal underwriter pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the Investment Company Act, the Code of Ethics and Business Conduct and more detailed policies and procedures set forth in FT’s Employee Handbook are separate requirements applying to the Covered Officers and others, and are not part of this Code.

VII.	Amendments

Any amendments to this Code must be approved or ratified by a majority vote of the FT Funds’ Board including a majority of independent directors.

 

³ Franklin Resources General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel are authorized to consult, as appropriate, with members of the Audit Committee, counsel to the FT Funds and counsel to the Independent Directors, and are encouraged to do so.

 

⁴ Item 2 of Form N-CSR defines “waiver” as “the approval by the registrant of a material departure from a provision of the code of ethics” and “implicit waiver,” which must also be disclosed, as “the registrant’s failure to take action within a reasonable period of time regarding a material departure from a provision of the code of ethics that has been made known to an executive officer” of the registrant. See Part X.

 

⁵ See Part X.

VIII.

Confidentiality

All reports and records prepared or maintained pursuant to this Code will be considered confidential and shall be maintained and protected accordingly. Except as otherwise required by law or this Code, such matters shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the FT Funds’ Board and their counsel.

IX.

Internal Use

The Code is intended solely for the internal use by the FT Funds and does not constitute an admission, by or on behalf of any FT Funds, as to any fact, circumstance, or legal conclusion.

X.

Disclosure on Form N-CSR

Item 2 of Form N-CSR requires a registered management investment company to disclose annually whether, as of the end of the period covered by the report, it has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the registrant’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, regardless of whether these officers are employed by the registrant or a third party. If the registrant has not adopted such a code of ethics, it must explain why it has not done so.

The registrant must also: (1) file with the SEC a copy of the code as an exhibit to its annual report; (2) post the text of the code on its Internet website and disclose, in its most recent report on Form N-CSR, its Internet address and the fact that it has posted the code on its Internet website; or (3) undertake in its most recent report on Form N-CSR to provide to any person without charge, upon request, a copy of the code and explain the manner in which such request may be made. Disclosure is also required of amendments to, or waivers (including implicit waivers) from, a provision of the code in the registrant’s annual report on Form N-CSR or on its website. If the registrant intends to satisfy the requirement to disclose amendments and waivers by posting such information on its website, it will be required to disclose its Internet address and this intention.

The Legal Department shall be responsible for ensuring that:

 

	•	a copy of the Code is filed with the SEC as an exhibit to each Fund’s annual report; and

•

any amendments to, or waivers (including implicit waivers) from, a provision of the Code is disclosed in the registrant’s annual report on Form N-CSR.

In the event that the foregoing disclosure is omitted or is determined to be incorrect, the Legal Department shall promptly file such information with the SEC as an amendment to Form N-CSR.

In such an event, the Fund Chief Compliance Officer shall review the Code and propose such changes to the Code as are necessary or appropriate to prevent reoccurrences.

Exhibit A

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM

 

Franklin Templeton Funds Code of Ethics

For Principal Executives and Senior Financial Officers

Instructions:

 

1.	Complete all sections of this form.

 

2.	Print the completed form, sign, and date.

 

3.	Submit completed form to FT’s General Counsel c/o Code of Ethics Administration within 10 days of becoming a Covered Officer and by February 15th of each subsequent year.

 

E-mail:

Code of Ethics Inquiries & Requests (internal address); lpreclear@franklintempleton.com (external address)

 

Covered Officer’s Name:
Title:
Department:
Location:
Certification for Year Ending:

 

To: Franklin Resources General Counsel, Legal Department

 

I acknowledge receiving, reading and understanding the Franklin Templeton Fund’s Code of Ethics for Principal Executive Officers and Senior Financial Officers (the “Code”). I will comply fully with all provisions of the Code to the extent they apply to me during the period of my employment. I further understand and acknowledge that any violation of the Code may subject me to disciplinary action, including termination of employment.

 

Signature		Date signed

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

EX-99.CERT

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Jane Trust, certify that:

 

1.

I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc.;

 

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

 

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

 

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:	January 24, 2025		/s/ Jane Trust
			Jane Trust
			Chief Executive Officer

 

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Christopher Berarducci, certify that:

 

1.

I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc.;

 

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial information included in this report, and the financial statements on which the financial information is based, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

 

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

 

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:	January 24, 2025	/s/ Christopher Berarducci
		Christopher Berarducci
		Principal Financial Officer

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

EX-99.906CERT

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Jane Trust, Chief Executive Officer, and Christopher Berarducci, Principal Financial Officer of ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc. (the “Registrant”), each certify to the best of their knowledge that:

 

1.       The Registrant’s periodic report on Form N-CSR for the period ended November 30, 2024 (the “Form N-CSR”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.       The information contained in the Form N-CSR fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

Chief Executive Officer		Principal Financial Officer
ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc.		ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund Inc.
/s/ Jane Trust		/s/ Christopher Berarducci
Jane Trust		Christopher Berarducci
Date: January 24, 2025		Date:  January 24, 2025

 

This certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form N-CSR with the Commission.

---